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


Author Topic: whats wrong about these two statements and is your church catholic enough.  (Read 10552 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
And that is the Truth. You are just mad because it doesn't support the picture you want to portray the Catholic Church as.

There were no protestants. Every branch of Christianity were churches led by Apostolic Successors. They all acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Pontiff just to the same extent as the Latin Churches.

There were no protestants, Larry.

Say and believe what you want but the facts are the facts and like I said before;

The Roman Church doesn't say you need to be a member of the Roman Church to be saved either.


<CHECKMATE>

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Ben

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Manna: 63
    • View Profile
The Church is not selling indulgences so I could care less about the objections of anti-catholic protestants.

My dear Lighthammer I see you STILL have your hear buried in the sand and refuse to believe that the RCC is spreading out and out lies that one CAN buy favors from The Roman Church i.e. The "body of Christ" with "charitable contributions" or in other words, money.  And don't try and give me any baloney that a "charitable contribution" means helping a little old lady across the street.  I get requests for "charitable contributions" just about every day and there are little boxes you can check with the amount of your "charitable contribution" like $20.00 - $50.00 - $100.00 - $1000.00 or simply "amount" but I have yet to see a box that says if you can't give money please use the blank space provided below to write in the good work you have done so we can give you credit.

Ben

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Ben,

Your words are valid as opinion only. No one is taking money for indulgences anymore. I'm sorry we're not as corrupt as you all want to say. Or to indulge your paranoia; I'm sorry our corruption isn't as open as you all would like.

larry2

  • Guest


Other Christian churches are not true churches.  They are Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church.



I do not know why, but I had a more detailed reply to this profound religious statement of yours, but just when I went to post it the site went off air. Evidently God is watching my mouth for me, and it certainly needs it at times.

I will just say, considering what you just posted that you have absolutely no clue as to what the true Church is, and then I think if you do answer it will be a programmed speech from some RCC catechism you read.




We just disagree.  I think Jesus started a single Church with authority and succsssion.  You don't.

I once believed as you do but the evidence and the Holy Spirit have led me to a different conclusion.



And you're blaming the Holy Spirit for the dribble you're putting forth here?  ::frown::

Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile


Other Christian churches are not true churches.  They are Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church.



I do not know why, but I had a more detailed reply to this profound religious statement of yours, but just when I went to post it the site went off air. Evidently God is watching my mouth for me, and it certainly needs it at times.

I will just say, considering what you just posted that you have absolutely no clue as to what the true Church is, and then I think if you do answer it will be a programmed speech from some RCC catechism you read.




We just disagree.  I think Jesus started a single Church with authority and succsssion.  You don't.

I once believed as you do but the evidence and the Holy Spirit have led me to a different conclusion.



And you're blaming the Holy Spirit for the dribble you're putting forth here?  ::frown::


He's saying the influence of the Holy Spirit isn't dominating the protestant denomination when it comes to official doctrine. That is why you all disagree on any and everything that is Christian. Man made reasoning and wisdom is what prevails. In the Apostolic Faith there is no such dominance. What we teach as official doctrine is what we recieve from the Holy Ghost just as our founders did so at the Council of Jerusale in Acts.


Christian Forums and Message Board


Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
They haven't changed anything


I think this contradicts what you've been saying.   Quotes have been given and, completely evading the clear verbatim words, your response has been "But now it's DIFFERENT!"   Which is it?  The same or changed?



Quote
No Protestant Church is the true church. You guys are too young, too contrasting and deviate too greatly from the Early Church.

1.  I don't know of any denomination that claims to be the one, holy, catholic communion of saints except for the RCC, LDS (and of course, each one of the cults known to me).   The institutional, denominational paradigm is not Protestant, we tend to believe that Christians are people and that the gathering, the communion of Christians is thus also people - not a denomination.

2.  Deviate too much from the early Christians?   You mean like the DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - unheard of among the early Christians?   You mean like the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary - unheard of among the early Christians (and still among about half of all Christians)?  You mean like the DOGMAS of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and Transubstantiation - unheard of among the early Christians (and still among half of all Christians)?   You mean all the doctrines unique to the RCC, the ones that define the RCC, all those entirely unheard of among the early Christians?  






.

Offline Ben

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Manna: 63
    • View Profile
Copy, "I think Jesus started a single Church with authority and succsssion."  You are wrong.  Matt 28:18 "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  Note He didn't say all authority has been given to the RCC.  The word "succession" is not found in the Bible. It is another word dreamed up by the RCC to show they are "it" and they are not 'it."

Ben

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Quote
I think this contradicts what you've been saying.   Quotes have been given and, completely evading the clear verbatim words, your response has been "But now it's DIFFERENT!"   Which is it?  The same or changed?


Yea to be 100% honest I think I see your point. Before there were any protestants you had to be in full communion with the Church to be saved because the Church set the mandates of Christ as its standards for such and Christianity was one house. However after the Rreformation, Protestant Christians were fulfilling the requisistes outside of the established community and the Church taught that salvation was no longer found in just the established community because Christianity was now more than just the One, Holy, Catholic Church.

Once believers were believing apart from the authority of the apostolic successors the established hierchy kept with the teachings of Christ when the apostles tried to keep a man from doing good works in the name of Christ. Christ taught that just because someone is not of the apostolic community does not mean that they can't be saved. Once He spoke the apostles pursued the matter no further. That is EXACTLY what the Church did. Once there were christians doing things in the name of Christ apart from the apostolic community the Church did not teach that they were anything but saved Christians.

Quote
1.  I don't know of any denomination that claims to be the one, holy, catholic communion of saints except for the RCC, LDS (and of course, each one of the cults known to me).   The institutional, denominational paradigm is not Protestant, we tend to believe that Christians are people and that the gathering, the communion of Christians is thus also people - not a denomination.


People rally under names and titles. First was Christian. Then there were Christians teaching things apart from the leadership of the Twelve so "Catholic" was assumed to distinguished between the faithful and the heretics. Then when the successors split the two took on the names of Eastern Catholic (b.k.a. Orthodox) and Roman Catholic. The Oriental Orthodox Churches are in communion with the Eastern Orthdox Church and the Assyrian Churches catholic as well.

Quote
You mean like the DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - unheard of among the early Christians?   


Unheard and unrecorded are two different things. But yes thats one. The earliest recorded belief concerning the Theotokos perpetual virginity says that she is such a perpetual virgin. The Protovoelium of James refers to her as a "virgin of the Lord".

Quote
You mean like the DOGMAS of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary - unheard of among the early Christians (and still among about half of all Christians)?

Yes of course she was the human Holy of Holies everyone knew she was sinless to have had born God into the world.

Quote
You mean like the DOGMAS of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff and Transubstantiation - unheard of among the early Christians (and still among half of all Christians)?

Well you want find the title "Roman Pontiff" anywhere in the Bible but you will find its original holder Peter and you will refer to how he infallibily declared that all food was clean.  The Real Prescence is born from the mouth of Christ in regards to what He says about His own Supper and what He calls the bread and wine.

It is protestants claim to "clarify" what God said so plainly to interfere symbolism to a very literal statement.

Quote
You mean all the doctrines unique to the RCC, the ones that define the RCC, all those entirely unheard of among the early Christians? 


Well yea pretty much. They are also shared by the Orthodox and Assyrian Churches which all three together are the oldest forms of Christianity on the planet.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Copy, "I think Jesus started a single Church with authority and succsssion."  You are wrong.  Matt 28:18 "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  Note He didn't say all authority has been given to the RCC.  The word "succession" is not found in the Bible. It is another word dreamed up by the RCC to show they are "it" and they are not 'it."

Ben

Well thats a pretty limited way to look at the Bible. By all accounts the word Trinity isn't in the Bible either that doesn't mean it is described clearly in it.

The first instance of apostolic succession occurs in Acts with the selection of Matthias.

larry2

  • Guest

There were no protestants, Larry.


There was no Roman Church either. If you ever get over your present thinking you'll realize that the Apostle John wrote letters to the church in or at seven different locations.

I can just imagine the horror of those early disciples to have been called Roman Catholics. That kind of stuff appeals to the flesh, but not to God. Jesus even had Paul utter these following words over such foolishness. 1 Corinthians 3:3-4. "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Today Paul would instead of saying I am of Paul or Apollos, would be saying you carnal ones that call yourselves something other than the body of Christ; shame on you prideful bunch of carnal flesh following believers.

Remember that for God to fulfill the righteousness of the law in us, we cannot be walking after the flesh (Carnality) but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4. But just as Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Copy, "I think Jesus started a single Church with authority and succsssion."  You are wrong.  Matt 28:18 "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."  Note He didn't say all authority has been given to the RCC.  The word "succession" is not found in the Bible. It is another word dreamed up by the RCC to show they are "it" and they are not 'it."

Ben



Ben,


IMO, here's the key....


For ME, the epiphany was my study of the early LDS and of several American "Christian" cults.....  In each case, there is a need to be able to condemn all others as apostate, heretical, terribly WRONG in order to condemn and to call people out of these "false" (or at least inadequate, incomplete) denominations:  This MANDATES that all OTHERS be fully and immediately and passionately accountable - right here, right now - typically by self alone (the LDS or the cult).  There NEEDS some basis to say, "All others are WRONG!"

But then, there NEEDS to be some shield, some absolute protection for SELF, an absolute exception to all the above in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of SELF (the denomination or cult) so that SELF doesn't get examined, self isn't accountable.   "YOU are fully and immediately accountable - to me, and yup, you are all WRONG!   I - on the other hand - am absolutely, completely, totally exempt from accountability - in MY case, truth is moot cuz I got AUTHORITY/POWER and you are to jsut submit to ME as unto God!"    Read the epistemology of virtually any cult.  Read the early LDS Apostles and Prophets (Bruce McConkie is probably the most clear on this - and the language he used in STUNNING in being almost verbatim the same as Catholicism, stunning because Bruce McConkie knew almost nothing about Catholicism - he just defends the 180, the absolute double standard, in virtually verbatim words and thoughts).

HOW TO JUSTIFY this 180, this absolute reversal, this total double standard for Christian teachers?   Ben, it's always done EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.   The following NEEDS to be done to uphold this....

1.  A paradigm shift from Christian to denomination, the denomination NEEDS the power to interpret, arbitrate, declare.  There needs to be a very, very strong sense of the DENOMINATION, the institutional entity.  We see this in the LDS (especially early on) and in every cult known to me.  The DENOMINATION becomes the focus.  There needs to be a ME vs. THEM mentality, insiders and outsiders.  And a POWER base centered in self.

2.  Accountability NEEDS to be embraced - strongly - because of the need to condemn others and underpin the "us vs. them" mentality.  So, when OTHERS (others) - speak or teach, THEY are accountable.   Now.  Totally.  When OTHERS speak, truth is the issue.

3.  But SELF must be exempt.  This is the critical factor!   The bright light shined on OTHERS must be turned off - turned completely off - when self speaks.  Self must be shielded from the very thing it passionately insists upon for all OTHER Christians and Christian teachers.   You'd think this would be hard!   Especially for intelligent, thinking, investigating people!  Turns out, it's not.  The early LDS and todays cults are FILLED with smart, intelligent, educated people.   How to "Justify" the contradiction, the 180, the absolute double standard, the insistence that all OTHERS must stand in the bright light of full accountability, they must PROVE their stance - and yet turn all that off for self?   Here's out it's done:

4.  SELF (note #1, the shift from people to denomination) was established by GOD.   This - I alone was founded by God - is the foundation of this whole argument, the one point that will NEVER be surrendered because the whole thing crashes to the ground without it.  GOD created, founded, established the denomination or cult or sect.  Then (so the argument always goes.....) because GOD created this denomination/cult/sect - it stands to reason that He will especially guide, lead and protect it (actually, this is profoundly ILLOGICAL and UNBIBLICAL - but it seems to work).  Thus, SELF is special.  In fact, SELF may well be defined in God-like terms, a kind of self-deification, essentially making the denomination equal to God.  "When I speak, God speaks!"  "God cannot err, thus I cannot err!"  

5.  Thus, we have two SEPARATE issues:  Truth (applying to every OTHER teacher) and POWER (applying to self exclusively).   To all others - the sole issue is "is it true!"  Self designates self as the sole arbiter to answer that question, and self designates the view of self as the standard/rule that defines what is true:  if the other agrees with self, such is true - but of course, none do:  so the goal is met:  All OTHERS are wrong and can me condemned as errant, apostate, heretical, imcomplete or whatever title is needed.  But what about SELF?   How to turn off that bright light for self?   Because SELF cannot be wrong, SELF  - by virtue of being God's Church especially protected and guided by God - cannot be wrong and thus it's silly to subject it to accountability ("Do you question Jesus?  Then do not question the Church, His Voice" said LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie).   Thus, there is a clear paradigm shift to POWER.  P.O.W.E.R.  the POWER card is played by self every time the issue of self comes up.   Some call this power "Authority."  Some call it "Divine Voice."  Whatever it is called, it is the POWER that self claims that self has so that self is exempt from the bright light of accountability that it insists is mandated for all OTHERS.   There are two very, very, very different issues here:  TRUTH - the issue for every other Christian teacher (including denominations) and POWER - the issue for self exclusively.   Because SELF has this POWER - it is exempt from the very thing SO critical for Christian teachers.  

6.  I got interested in all this during my Catholic days quite by accident.  On a website, I met a man who heads up a "rescue ministry" focused on a particular cult.  Formerly in that cult, he works with other former cultists in trying to "liberate" people from it - especially since the cultists tend to be college educated, smart and typically pretty techie, on the net.  The problem, he noted STRONGLY, is that the entire epistemology of the cult is a PERFECT CIRCLE that simply CANNOT be broken.   "The Cult is divine - divinely founded, divinely lead, divinely protected - the leader is infallible (in certain cases anyway) and is the vicar of God (or Christ).  It has POWER so that it is INCAPABLE of error - and thus, no matter what is brought up, no matter what, it's moot since the cult CANNOT be wrong whereas the one "outside" not only CAN be wrong - but is.  Besides, what ALONE determines who is right?  The cult.  And what ALONE determines what is correct teachings?  The cult.  It's a perfect circle of self-authorization, self-authentication.   "The cult is right so the cult is right when the cult says the cult is right....."   There's no way to break that.   The claim of self for self has been embraced - and the perfect circle established.  It's a perfect tool to protect self.  Whether that is done sincerely because self actually believes that self cannot be wrong (in this case, the cultist leader seemed entirely sincere) or simply as a way to protect a false teacher from what he demands of all others.  


I hope that helps.





.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile

There were no protestants, Larry.


There was no Roman Church either. If you ever get over your present thinking you'll realize that the Apostle John wrote letters to the church in or at seven different locations.

I can just imagine the horror of those early disciples to have been called Roman Catholics. That kind of stuff appeals to the flesh, but not to God. Jesus even had Paul utter these following words over such foolishness. 1 Corinthians 3:3-4. "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Today Paul would instead of saying I am of Paul or Apollos, would be saying you carnal ones that call yourselves something other than the body of Christ; shame on you prideful bunch of carnal flesh following believers.

Remember that for God to fulfill the righteousness of the law in us, we cannot be walking after the flesh (Carnality) but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4. But just as Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The Apostle Peter died in Rome and organized the Church thereof. If you would read a history book you would know this.


Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile

There were no protestants, Larry.


There was no Roman Church either. If you ever get over your present thinking you'll realize that the Apostle John wrote letters to the church in or at seven different locations.

I can just imagine the horror of those early disciples to have been called Roman Catholics. That kind of stuff appeals to the flesh, but not to God. Jesus even had Paul utter these following words over such foolishness. 1 Corinthians 3:3-4. "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Today Paul would instead of saying I am of Paul or Apollos, would be saying you carnal ones that call yourselves something other than the body of Christ; shame on you prideful bunch of carnal flesh following believers.

Remember that for God to fulfill the righteousness of the law in us, we cannot be walking after the flesh (Carnality) but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4. But just as Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The Apostle Peter died in Rome and organized the Church thereof. If you would read a history book you would know this.




I've read the history.   Peter (whom Jesus called "Satan") MAY have been in Rome (there's no contemporary record of it).   He wasn't the founder of the congregation there and there's ZERO indication that he organized anything, ever, anywhere.  In the city of Rome or any other place.   When Paul writes to the congregation there perhaps around 55 AD, the congregation was already well established.   While Paul speaks of many in the congregation, he never once even mentions Peter.  In Acts 28, written around 65 AD, about 2 years before Peter supposedly died, Luke records Paul in Rome for about two years and there's no mentioned whatsoever of Peter - about or concerning anything at all - during any of these two years.  In the Book of Acts, Peter simply seems to drop of the radar after the Council of Jerusalem (headed NOT by he but my Pastor James).  

There's no indication that ANY denomination existed at the time of Peter's life (or for centuries afterword), whether such being the OO or EO or RC or some proto to those or otherwise.  Or that Peter had anything to do with any denomination.   Yup, he MAY have been in Rome, but that's all we can say historically.  





.
« Last Edit: Tue Feb 08, 2011 - 10:13:01 by Josiah »

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile

There were no protestants, Larry.


There was no Roman Church either. If you ever get over your present thinking you'll realize that the Apostle John wrote letters to the church in or at seven different locations.

I can just imagine the horror of those early disciples to have been called Roman Catholics. That kind of stuff appeals to the flesh, but not to God. Jesus even had Paul utter these following words over such foolishness. 1 Corinthians 3:3-4. "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4  For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Today Paul would instead of saying I am of Paul or Apollos, would be saying you carnal ones that call yourselves something other than the body of Christ; shame on you prideful bunch of carnal flesh following believers.

Remember that for God to fulfill the righteousness of the law in us, we cannot be walking after the flesh (Carnality) but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4. But just as Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:3, But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

The Apostle Peter died in Rome and organized the Church thereof. If you would read a history book you would know this.




I've read the history.   Peter (whom Jesus called "Satan") MAY have been in Rome (there's no contemporary record of it).   He wasn't the founder of the congregation there and there's ZERO indication that he organized anything.  In the city of Rome or any other place.   When Paul writes to the congregation there perhaps around 55 AD, the congregation was already well established.   While Paul speaks of many in the congregation, he never once even mentions Peter.  In Acts 28, written around 65 AD, about 2 years before Peter supposedly died, Luke records Paul in Rome for about two years and there's no mentioned whatsoever of Peter - about or concerning anything at all - during any of these two years.  In the Book of Acts, Peter simply seems to drop of the radar after the Council of Jerusalem (headed NOT by he but my Pastor James).   

There's no indication that ANY denomination existed at the time of Peter's life (or for centuries afterword), whether such being the OO or EO or RC or some proto to those or otherwise.  Or that Peter had anything to do with any denomination.   Yup, he MAY have been in Rome, but that's all we can say historically.  





.

Dude no its not. He was crucified upside down and Paul was beheaded in Rome. They both traveled together and served their remainder of their earthly lives there.

I don't what history you think you know but there is no "MAY have been" anything. It is definite.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Quote
And Peter, having come to the cross, said: Since my Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from the heaven upon the earth, was raised upon the cross upright, and He has deigned to call to heaven me, who am of the earth, my cross ought to be fixed head down most, so as to direct my feet towards heaven; for I am not worthy to be crucified like my Lord. Then, having reversed the cross, they nailed his feet up.

-Acts of Peter 2nd century later half


This book was composed originially in the 2nd century. It is not an sinpiration of Truth so it serves Apocryphally as a recording of history.

Dispute what you want.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
And I weasn't saying he started the Church there, I was saying that he further organized and led the Church from there.


Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
There is history and there is RC history.  There is no requirement that the two correlate.  If you call it tradition, then there is no need for it to be correlatable with actual history.   ::crackup::

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
There is history and there is RC history.  There is no requirement that the two correlate.  If you call it tradition, then there is no need for it to be correlatable with actual history.   ::crackup::


Jimmy you know about history as much as you know about true catholic doctrine and beliefs.

Stop pretending like you've actually done any legitimate research. Just sit there and observe and let those who have actually put time and effort into studying in studying Sacred Scripture and the history of its recorded Church talk.


Gosh if you don't know anything then just be quiet.

Offline Thankfulldad

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3095
  • Manna: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile

IMO, here's the key....


For ME, the epiphany was my study of the early LDS and of several American "Christian" cults.....  In each case, there is a need to be able to condemn all others as apostate, heretical, terribly WRONG in order to condemn and to call people out of these "false" (or at least inadequate, incomplete) denominations:  This MANDATES that all OTHERS be fully and immediately and passionately accountable - right here, right now - typically by self alone (the LDS or the cult).  There NEEDS some basis to say, "All others are WRONG!"

But then, there NEEDS to be some shield, some absolute protection for SELF, an absolute exception to all the above in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of SELF (the denomination or cult) so that SELF doesn't get examined, self isn't accountable.   "YOU are fully and immediately accountable - to me, and yup, you are all WRONG!   I - on the other hand - am absolutely, completely, totally exempt from accountability - in MY case, truth is moot cuz I got AUTHORITY/POWER and you are to jsut submit to ME as unto God!"    Read the epistemology of virtually any cult.  Read the early LDS Apostles and Prophets (Bruce McConkie is probably the most clear on this - and the language he used in STUNNING in being almost verbatim the same as Catholicism, stunning because Bruce McConkie knew almost nothing about Catholicism - he just defends the 180, the absolute double standard, in virtually verbatim words and thoughts).

HOW TO JUSTIFY this 180, this absolute reversal, this total double standard for Christian teachers?   Ben, it's always done EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.   The following NEEDS to be done to uphold this....

1.  A paradigm shift from Christian to denomination, the denomination NEEDS the power to interpret, arbitrate, declare.  There needs to be a very, very strong sense of the DENOMINATION, the institutional entity.  We see this in the LDS (especially early on) and in every cult known to me.  The DENOMINATION becomes the focus.  There needs to be a ME vs. THEM mentality, insiders and outsiders.  And a POWER base centered in self.

2.  Accountability NEEDS to be embraced - strongly - because of the need to condemn others and underpin the "us vs. them" mentality.  So, when OTHERS (others) - speak or teach, THEY are accountable.   Now.  Totally.  When OTHERS speak, truth is the issue.

3.  But SELF must be exempt.  This is the critical factor!   The bright light shined on OTHERS must be turned off - turned completely off - when self speaks.  Self must be shielded from the very thing it passionately insists upon for all OTHER Christians and Christian teachers.   You'd think this would be hard!   Especially for intelligent, thinking, investigating people!  Turns out, it's not.  The early LDS and todays cults are FILLED with smart, intelligent, educated people.   How to "Justify" the contradiction, the 180, the absolute double standard, the insistence that all OTHERS must stand in the bright light of full accountability, they must PROVE their stance - and yet turn all that off for self?   Here's out it's done:

4.  SELF (note #1, the shift from people to denomination) was established by GOD.   This - I alone was founded by God - is the foundation of this whole argument, the one point that will NEVER be surrendered because the whole thing crashes to the ground without it.  GOD created, founded, established the denomination or cult or sect.  Then (so the argument always goes.....) because GOD created this denomination/cult/sect - it stands to reason that He will especially guide, lead and protect it (actually, this is profoundly ILLOGICAL and UNBIBLICAL - but it seems to work).  Thus, SELF is special.  In fact, SELF may well be defined in God-like terms, a kind of self-deification, essentially making the denomination equal to God.  "When I speak, God speaks!"  "God cannot err, thus I cannot err!" 

5.  Thus, we have two SEPARATE issues:  Truth (applying to every OTHER teacher) and POWER (applying to self exclusively).   To all others - the sole issue is "is it true!"  Self designates self as the sole arbiter to answer that question, and self designates the view of self as the standard/rule that defines what is true:  if the other agrees with self, such is true - but of course, none do:  so the goal is met:  All OTHERS are wrong and can me condemned as errant, apostate, heretical, imcomplete or whatever title is needed.  But what about SELF?   How to turn off that bright light for self?   Because SELF cannot be wrong, SELF  - by virtue of being God's Church especially protected and guided by God - cannot be wrong and thus it's silly to subject it to accountability ("Do you question Jesus?  Then do not question the Church, His Voice" said LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie).   Thus, there is a clear paradigm shift to POWER.  P.O.W.E.R.  the POWER card is played by self every time the issue of self comes up.   Some call this power "Authority."  Some call it "Divine Voice."  Whatever it is called, it is the POWER that self claims that self has so that self is exempt from the bright light of accountability that it insists is mandated for all OTHERS.   There are two very, very, very different issues here:  TRUTH - the issue for every other Christian teacher (including denominations) and POWER - the issue for self exclusively.   Because SELF has this POWER - it is exempt from the very thing SO critical for Christian teachers.   

6.  I got interested in all this during my Catholic days quite by accident.  On a website, I met a man who heads up a "rescue ministry" focused on a particular cult.  Formerly in that cult, he works with other former cultists in trying to "liberate" people from it - especially since the cultists tend to be college educated, smart and typically pretty techie, on the net.  The problem, he noted STRONGLY, is that the entire epistemology of the cult is a PERFECT CIRCLE that simply CANNOT be broken.   "The Cult is divine - divinely founded, divinely lead, divinely protected - the leader is infallible (in certain cases anyway) and is the vicar of God (or Christ).  It has POWER so that it is INCAPABLE of error - and thus, no matter what is brought up, no matter what, it's moot since the cult CANNOT be wrong whereas the one "outside" not only CAN be wrong - but is.  Besides, what ALONE determines who is right?  The cult.  And what ALONE determines what is correct teachings?  The cult.  It's a perfect circle of self-authorization, self-authentication.   "The cult is right so the cult is right when the cult says the cult is right....."   There's no way to break that.   The claim of self for self has been embraced - and the perfect circle established.  It's a perfect tool to protect self.  Whether that is done sincerely because self actually believes that self cannot be wrong (in this case, the cultist leader seemed entirely sincere) or simply as a way to protect a false teacher from what he demands of all others. 


I hope that helps.

Thank you Josiah!

Living in S.L.C., where all around me are the LDS; this helps me understand the way they are.  God Bless you and all your efforts...as you let God's Word to the talking, not the self proclaimed lies of the cults...

larry2

  • Guest


IMO, here's the key....

For ME, the epiphany was my study of the early LDS and of several American "Christian" cults.....  In each case, there is a need to be able to condemn all others as apostate, heretical, terribly WRONG in order to condemn and to call people out of these "false" (or at least inadequate, incomplete) denominations:  This MANDATES that all OTHERS be fully and immediately and passionately accountable - right here, right now - typically by self alone (the LDS or the cult).  There NEEDS some basis to say, "All others are WRONG!"

But then, there NEEDS to be some shield, some absolute protection for SELF, an absolute exception to all the above in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of SELF (the denomination or cult) so that SELF doesn't get examined, self isn't accountable.   "YOU are fully and immediately accountable - to me, and yup, you are all WRONG!   I - on the other hand - am absolutely, completely, totally exempt from accountability - in MY case, truth is moot cuz I got AUTHORITY/POWER and you are to jsut submit to ME as unto God!"    Read the epistemology of virtually any cult.  Read the early LDS Apostles and Prophets (Bruce McConkie is probably the most clear on this - and the language he used in STUNNING in being almost verbatim the same as Catholicism, stunning because Bruce McConkie knew almost nothing about Catholicism - he just defends the 180, the absolute double standard, in virtually verbatim words and thoughts).

HOW TO JUSTIFY this 180, this absolute reversal, this total double standard for Christian teachers?   Ben, it's always done EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.   The following NEEDS to be done to uphold this....

1.  A paradigm shift from Christian to denomination, the denomination NEEDS the power to interpret, arbitrate, declare.  There needs to be a very, very strong sense of the DENOMINATION, the institutional entity.  We see this in the LDS (especially early on) and in every cult known to me.  The DENOMINATION becomes the focus.  There needs to be a ME vs. THEM mentality, insiders and outsiders.  And a POWER base centered in self.

2.  Accountability NEEDS to be embraced - strongly - because of the need to condemn others and underpin the "us vs. them" mentality.  So, when OTHERS (others) - speak or teach, THEY are accountable.   Now.  Totally.  When OTHERS speak, truth is the issue.

3.  But SELF must be exempt.  This is the critical factor!   The bright light shined on OTHERS must be turned off - turned completely off - when self speaks.  Self must be shielded from the very thing it passionately insists upon for all OTHER Christians and Christian teachers.   You'd think this would be hard!   Especially for intelligent, thinking, investigating people!  Turns out, it's not.  The early LDS and todays cults are FILLED with smart, intelligent, educated people.   How to "Justify" the contradiction, the 180, the absolute double standard, the insistence that all OTHERS must stand in the bright light of full accountability, they must PROVE their stance - and yet turn all that off for self?   Here's out it's done:

4.  SELF (note #1, the shift from people to denomination) was established by GOD.   This - I alone was founded by God - is the foundation of this whole argument, the one point that will NEVER be surrendered because the whole thing crashes to the ground without it.  GOD created, founded, established the denomination or cult or sect.  Then (so the argument always goes.....) because GOD created this denomination/cult/sect - it stands to reason that He will especially guide, lead and protect it (actually, this is profoundly ILLOGICAL and UNBIBLICAL - but it seems to work).  Thus, SELF is special.  In fact, SELF may well be defined in God-like terms, a kind of self-deification, essentially making the denomination equal to God.  "When I speak, God speaks!"  "God cannot err, thus I cannot err!" 

5.  Thus, we have two SEPARATE issues:  Truth (applying to every OTHER teacher) and POWER (applying to self exclusively).   To all others - the sole issue is "is it true!"  Self designates self as the sole arbiter to answer that question, and self designates the view of self as the standard/rule that defines what is true:  if the other agrees with self, such is true - but of course, none do:  so the goal is met:  All OTHERS are wrong and can me condemned as errant, apostate, heretical, imcomplete or whatever title is needed.  But what about SELF?   How to turn off that bright light for self?   Because SELF cannot be wrong, SELF  - by virtue of being God's Church especially protected and guided by God - cannot be wrong and thus it's silly to subject it to accountability ("Do you question Jesus?  Then do not question the Church, His Voice" said LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie).   Thus, there is a clear paradigm shift to POWER.  P.O.W.E.R.  the POWER card is played by self every time the issue of self comes up.   Some call this power "Authority."  Some call it "Divine Voice."  Whatever it is called, it is the POWER that self claims that self has so that self is exempt from the bright light of accountability that it insists is mandated for all OTHERS.   There are two very, very, very different issues here:  TRUTH - the issue for every other Christian teacher (including denominations) and POWER - the issue for self exclusively.   Because SELF has this POWER - it is exempt from the very thing SO critical for Christian teachers.   

6.  I got interested in all this during my Catholic days quite by accident.  On a website, I met a man who heads up a "rescue ministry" focused on a particular cult.  Formerly in that cult, he works with other former cultists in trying to "liberate" people from it - especially since the cultists tend to be college educated, smart and typically pretty techie, on the net.  The problem, he noted STRONGLY, is that the entire epistemology of the cult is a PERFECT CIRCLE that simply CANNOT be broken.   "The Cult is divine - divinely founded, divinely lead, divinely protected - the leader is infallible (in certain cases anyway) and is the vicar of God (or Christ).  It has POWER so that it is INCAPABLE of error - and thus, no matter what is brought up, no matter what, it's moot since the cult CANNOT be wrong whereas the one "outside" not only CAN be wrong - but is.  Besides, what ALONE determines who is right?  The cult.  And what ALONE determines what is correct teachings?  The cult.  It's a perfect circle of self-authorization, self-authentication.   "The cult is right so the cult is right when the cult says the cult is right....."   There's no way to break that.   The claim of self for self has been embraced - and the perfect circle established.  It's a perfect tool to protect self.  Whether that is done sincerely because self actually believes that self cannot be wrong (in this case, the cultist leader seemed entirely sincere) or simply as a way to protect a false teacher from what he demands of all others. 

I hope that helps.


Thanks Josiah and manna for a well written aricle!

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong when you all contradict each other on everything.

For a faith to be labeled a cult just becuase it claims to hold the Truth is a bit silly but ok.

Offline Thankfulldad

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3095
  • Manna: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong when you all contradict each other on everything.

For a faith to be labeled a cult just becuase it claims to hold the Truth is a bit silly but ok.

Iron sharpens iron...as we discuss God's Holy word.  The key is we discuss, and our hearts are open for His Spirit to work through us...using the Bible only, God's Word.

Dig into God's Word and trust what He teaches...stay away from any church that dares to speak for God as the one true church with authority (they are cult and they are wrong); especially when it contradicts God's Holy word.  And only you can determine that...open the Bible, study, pray, read, with a soft heart willing to hear the truth. 

Offline Ben

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Manna: 63
    • View Profile
Josiah,

I seldom read long postings, but for some reason I read yours, even though I decided this morning that I was through responding to LightHammer as he is blinded by the RCC.  Your post was EXCELLENT.  THANK YOU.

Now I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread.  ::smile::

Ben  ::giggle::

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Oh that hurts. A grown man blinded by hatred and anger misguidedly crying for a dead friend he thinks is in hell when by all accounts I'm confident is in heaven, is through interacting with me? Oh my goodness the conviction.

If you could not tell that post was oozing sarcasm.

Offline Thankfulldad

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3095
  • Manna: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Oh that hurts. A grown man blinded by hatred and anger misguidedly crying for a dead friend he thinks is in hell when by all accounts I'm confident is in heaven, is through interacting with me? Oh my goodness the conviction.

If you could not tell that post was oozing sarcasm.

And what was your point?

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
There is history and there is RC history.  There is no requirement that the two correlate.  If you call it tradition, then there is no need for it to be correlatable with actual history.   ::crackup::


Jimmy you know about history as much as you know about true catholic doctrine and beliefs.

Stop pretending like you've actually done any legitimate research. Just sit there and observe and let those who have actually put time and effort into studying in studying Sacred Scripture and the history of its recorded Church talk.


Gosh if you don't know anything then just be quiet.

And you should stop pretending like you actually done any legitimate research about Scripture.  You are woefully ignorant there.  Catholic doctrine and beliefs?  Perhaps.  Scripturally sound doctrine and beliefs?  Not so much.  Mostly just a young blowhard whippershapper intellectual whannabe.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Thankfuldad,

My point was that I take no offense to a man driven by anger viewing me as unworthy to conversate with him. I actually couldn't care less. That was my point.


Jimmy,

You do realize that you say this to any and every bliever on this site who doesn't agree with you. I don't tell Larry2 or Thankfuldad or even angry Ben that they are poor students of Scripture and we disagree harshly. I didn't even say that to you. That was kind of much.

I said that you have no knowledge of Christian history, which you don't. I never once said you didn't know the Bible or anything offensive like that.
The flow of this discussion was the historic teachings of the Church with regard to salvation and who it teaches are saved. Although I believe the Bible and the Church teach the same about believers the protestants had different point of view and focused on the Church as if is some different Truth than the Scripture.

You butted in with your two histories mumbo jumbo which was way out of line seeing how you openly don't even study history.

Where do you get off jumping down my throat about my personal relationship with God and His Scriptures when in reality all we were discussing was the Church and I never so much as even mentioned your knowledge of Scripture.


Anyway no use in being upset. I'm numb to the sacrilege now.

Offline Thankfulldad

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3095
  • Manna: 222
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Thankfuldad,

My point was that I take no offense to a man driven by anger viewing me as unworthy to conversate with him. I actually couldn't care less. That was my point. 

Thanks for clarifying; was not sure if you were responding to my post or Ben's. 

Either way, know that I am not angry; but, only want to share His Spirit who dwells in me with others...I am unworthy...but, He is my all in all ::smile::

Offline Jimmy

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14574
  • Manna: 294
    • View Profile
Where do you get off jumping down my throat about my personal relationship with God

I did not nor have I ever said anything about your personal relationship with God.

But I have read enough church history to recongize the difference between that presented by historians and that presented by RC historians.  It is presented from two different points of view and they can't both be correct.  I have read what you present here as history and know that it is does not correlate with the NT.  So much for your mumbo jumbo accusation.

Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
Thankfuldad,

My point was that I take no offense to a man driven by anger viewing me as unworthy to conversate with him. I actually couldn't care less. That was my point. 

Thanks for clarifying; was not sure if you were responding to my post or Ben's. 

Either way, know that I am not angry; but, only want to share His Spirit who dwells in me with others...I am unworthy...but, He is my all in all ::smile::

Yea sorry Thankfuldad, I should've called Ben by name.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
There is history and there is RC history.  There is no requirement that the two correlate.  If you call it tradition, then there is no need for it to be correlatable with actual history.   ::crackup::

There's history and then there is denominational self-serving spin.....

When Catholicism references "history" I've found it RARELY has anything to do with history in any objective, substantiated form - it rather is the claims of it itself alone for it itself alone, to try to support the efforts of it itself alone to switch the subject from truth to power in the singular case of it itself alone.   But when you ask for objective, contemporary HISTORY - the topic shifts.  It's not about history at all, it turns out.  It's about the claims of a denomination for itself - somehow imputed into history with zero confirmation.  For example, while it MAY be that Peter was in Rome (LATER Christians referred to such - considerably after Peter's death), there's ZERO historical affirmation of him organizating ANYTHING or he being embraced as an infallible POPE or he having ANYTHING to do with the RCC denomination (or any other).  In fact, there is NO history whatsoever - in Scripture or otherwise - during his lifetime or anytime shortly after that - of he being a bishop or being a Pope or anything about any "keys" or anything about he being the "vicar" of anyone.  In fact, he pretty much disappears from the historical record pretty early (read the Book of Acts).  Or consider the emphasis on Apostolic Succession (moot since the RCC doesn't claim that Bishops have anything, it claims that IT has everything):  The claims are all entirely baseless Scripturally and this "succession" has ZERO historical confirmation - in reality, we have virtually NO contemporary record of any ordinations or appointments for the first THREE HUNDRED years of Christianity!!!!!!!   As my own priest freely admitted, "It's a matter of faith, not history."  Right.  It's NOT history.  There's history and then there's self-serving denominational spin.   They aren't necessary related at all.







.



Offline LightHammer

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8424
  • Manna: 273
  • Gender: Male
  • I.C.T.H.Y.S.
    • View Profile
There is history and there is RC history.  There is no requirement that the two correlate.  If you call it tradition, then there is no need for it to be correlatable with actual history.   ::crackup::

There's history and then there is denominational self-serving spin.....

When Catholicism references "history" I've found it RARELY has anything to do with history in any objective, substantiated form - it rather is the claims of it itself alone for it itself alone, to try to support the efforts of it itself alone to switch the subject from truth to power in the singular case of it itself alone.   But when you ask for objective, contemporary HISTORY - the topic shifts.  It's not about history at all, it turns out.  It's about the claims of a denomination for itself - somehow imputed into history with zero confirmation.  For example, while it MAY be that Peter was in Rome (LATER Christians referred to such - considerably after Peter's death), there's ZERO historical affirmation of him organizating ANYTHING or he being embraced as an infallible POPE or he having ANYTHING to do with the RCC denomination (or any other).  In fact, there is NO history whatsoever - in Scripture or otherwise - during his lifetime or anytime shortly after that - of he being a bishop or being a Pope or anything about any "keys" or anything about he being the "vicar" of anyone.  In fact, he pretty much disappears from the historical record pretty early (read the Book of Acts).  Or consider the emphasis on Apostolic Succession (moot since the RCC doesn't claim that Bishops have anything, it claims that IT has everything):  The claims are all entirely baseless Scripturally and this "succession" has ZERO historical confirmation - in reality, we have virtually NO contemporary record of any ordinations or appointments for the first THREE HUNDRED years of Christianity!!!!!!!   As my own priest freely admitted, "It's a matter of faith, not history."  Right.  It's NOT history.  There's history and then there's self-serving denominational spin.   They aren't necessary related at all.







.






Ask any non-christian historian and you will find that the Catholic sources are all accredited as valid history.  Its not like the history we quote doesn't affirm what we say and never happened.

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
There is history and there is RC history.  There is no requirement that the two correlate.  If you call it tradition, then there is no need for it to be correlatable with actual history.   ::crackup::
In fact, there is NO history whatsoever - in Scripture or otherwise - during his lifetime or anytime shortly after that - of he being a bishop or being a Pope or anything about any "keys" or anything about he being the "vicar" of anyone.


Josiah,

You are trying to fit too many things into one box.   You are right in that Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome.  No apostles were bishops of jurisdictions.  However, Peter did die in Rome, so it was sort of an honor that some gave him--thus, the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, which I believe is celebrated by Lutherans as well.  The "keys" comes from Matt 18:16. 

Quote
In fact, he pretty much disappears from the historical record pretty early (read the Book of Acts).


First, Acts is not a complete history of the Apostles.  Second, read Eusebius, the first church historian.  Third, consider the evidence that people were praying to Saint Peter and Paul as shown inscriptions on pottery from the 3rd century.  This evidence of Peter being in Rome.

Quote
  Or consider the emphasis on Apostolic Succession (moot since the RCC doesn't claim that Bishops have anything, it claims that IT has everything):  The claims are all entirely baseless Scripturally and this "succession" has ZERO historical confirmation - in reality, we have virtually NO contemporary record of any ordinations or appointments for the first THREE HUNDRED years of Christianity!!!!!!!


What about Paul appointing Timothy and Titus?  Have you heard about Clement of Rome's letter to Corinthians?  It argues for apostolic succession.

Admittedly, we don't have a whole lot of writings from early on (as there are few writings of any type that survived that era) , but the ones that we have (note Ignatious's letters) tells us a lot about how the early church works.

I'm not Catholic and I disagree with some Catholic historical claims (especially regarding the universality of the Bishop of Rome), but you can't say the RCC just made all of this stuff up.

 I will give Luther and Calvin this.  They cited the writings of the historic church (esp. St. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom) when making their arguments.  Today, Protestants just say it wasn't in the Bible; therefore, no history is valid after the New Testament. 

I strongly suggest that you read Henry Chadwick's "The History of the Early Church" (Penguin Press) to get a good handle of early church history.  Chadwick does not come from a denominational perspective, although he was an Anglican.


 

     
anything