Trusting Holy Scriptures Over The Church

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1389069' date='Sep 20 2007, 12:01 PM']actually that's not the case at all. the orthodox church existed. amoung other orthodox churches.[/quote] I'm counting all that under catholic,Notice how I ommited "Roman". I did'nt mean inly the latin church.
[quote]maybe prot types didn't in the west i don't know. or christians that weren't orthodox or catho i don'tknow.[/quote] That was the idea back then,If you didn't beleive what the church believed,you weren't Christian.
[quote]and at least in the earliest church were the gnostics. the cc seem to make people htink they should be brussed off as early new agers or whacky. but they did exist.[/quote] And they weren't Christians. [quote]and many heretical guprs existed i think. i'm pretty sure the cc didn't just squash heresies from its own members.[/quote]
Heretics =/= christians.
[quote]and if you remember i the earliest case of papal questioning was the dude who contested st. vitor the pope's power. i dn't think he was gnostic and he clearly didn't buy it. or firmilian either. these are in the earliest church. and i don't think gnostic.
the rest i jst don't know cause of my ignorance.[/quote]
and you can't be a Christian and deny the fundamentals of Christianity.
the Gnostics weren't Christian.
the Arians weren't Christian.
the Pelagians,Nestorians,Monophysites,none of these groups were christian.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's the prob. the CC teaches that if you are not following it's teachings you are a heretic and not christian. it's only heresy to the CC. i was using the terms loosely. if you define history as a revisionist, then sure they are not christians and are heretics. but you can't be a revisionist.

[dairygirl4u2c]

an interesting question. i'd have ot check to see if they broke fundamental concepts of basic christianity. were there any who didn't? i don't think the guys debating vicoor or stephen were debating basic christianity. or the orthodox.

[N/A Gone]

dairy. Out of that group that was mentioned (Gnostics, Arians/Pelagians,Nestorians,Monophysites) they broke major things that would be considered fundamental christian concepts by the majority of protestant groups. At the time that you are citing (patristic) there was not a difference in christian and catholic. To be christian was to be part of the universal church. That is what it was and is.

There is no revisionist history. The church fathers did their greatest works in the west against heretics and do not hold there tongue like we do now. Western theology was developed in the fire of the church defending herself against the heresy.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1389085' date='Sep 20 2007, 12:40 PM']that's the prob. the CC teaches that if you are not following it's teachings you are a heretic and not christian.[/quote] Of these The groups that I told you :
Two did not believe that Christ was the son of god,
One believed that they saved themselves by their own works,
three denied the trinity,
One taught that these was no such thing as original sin,(Or any sin at all) And that salvation is based not on God's grace,But through knowledge.
One believed that Christ had only ONE nature which was neither human or divine,but both.
Would these people qualify as Christians to you?
[quote]it's only heresy to the CC.[/quote] So you beleive that a person can beleive these things,And it's not heresy?
[quote]i was using the terms loosely. if you define history as a revisionist, then sure they are not christians and are heretics. but you can't be a revisionist.[/quote]
How am I being a revisionist?
Christians must beleive certain things to actually [i]be[/i] Christians.
These people [b]denied[/b] ALL of them.I present to you cold hard facts about these groups,and using the genraly accepted idea of what one must beleive to be a Christian, they just don't qualify.

[thessalonian]

[quote]and you can't be a Christian and deny the fundamentals of Christianity.
the Gnostics weren't Christian.
the Arians weren't Christian.
the Pelagians,Nestorians,Monophysites,none of these groups were christian.[/quote]

With the exception of the gnostics and perhaps the Arians I disagree with this statement. The Church did not rebaptize heretics ( a doctrine that stands today) and baptism is the sacrament of initiation in to Christianity. Therefore those who were baptized in these heretical groups were considered Christians if they were not re-baptized. I don't believe the Arians were rebaptized. Though I can't say for sure. The gnostics likely weren't baptized.

I disagree Dairy, that the CCC says that those not formerly Catholic are not Christian. Is that what you meant or am i reading you wrong?

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[Lord Philip]

ckozlowski,

You seem to throw around the term "the gospel" all the time as if you are reading the Bible (and thus speaking for it) and we are not. This is carying over a ridiculous anti-catholic diatribe that "Catholics don't even read their Bibles". You speak as if you are the one consulting Scripture and that my Catholic bretheren are not. Let me assure you, you are not the first to crack open the Scriptures and neither was Martin Luther. To continue to thrust a wedge between Scripture and the Church is not only "offensive" as you call it, but it is inaccurate and even worse, it is a circular argument.

Let me explain. We are all here trying to decide whether the Holy Catholic Church is in line with the Scriptures or whether it is not. Yet your arguments (evidenced by your claim to be weilding the gospel) are assuming the Protestant position right from the start. This is why we are going round and round in circles with you. This is a basic principle of argument: do not beg the question.

My Catholic Bretheren have made arguments from Scripture in response to your statement (let me remind you that by doing this they are arguing on Protestant grounds). Instead of continuing the ridiculous diatribes and continuing to run us around in circles, please address their points. Also, I would be interested in hearing a positive biblical case in favor of schism. Perhaps I will start a new thread with that.

If I were you (and I once was you....a Protestant who believed the Catholic Church was in error), I would give much heed to Revprodeji's statement about the Early Church Fathers. Does it not bother you that your interpretations of the Bible have no support in the understanding of Christianity, even in the very people who heard the words from the mouths of the Apostles themselves? Not only, in fact, is there no basis for your interpretations in the Early Fathers, but they flatly contradict your interpretations. Why is this so? Why does this not make you tremble? When I read these great Fathers as a Protestant, I indeed trembled...all the way accross the Tiber.

God bless you,

Philip

[Lord Philip]

Additionally, we as Catholics could use some of our own claims to authority, if you will.

Let us say you just made a brilliant case from the Scriptures concerning the non-rock status of St. Peter.

What we as Catholics could most certainly do is to tell you that your small interpretations of Scripture do not matter. Our Church holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, our pastors have their ordination in a direct line from that of Christ and that it was the Catholic Church that assembled the canon infallibly. Our Church is not rooted in rebellion but in the very work of God. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and the Protestants with their doctrines contradict Scripture in their schisms, in their tradition of "sola fide" when James 2.24 specifically contradicts this, and that they hold to the doctrine of "sola scriptura" which is not only illogical but nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Not only would you consider these truths uncharitable, but you would be quick to point out the fact that we are begging the question. I mention these things to you so you know that my Catholic Bretheren are holding their tongues beyond what is required of them. You would do well to avoid this fallacy yourself.

In Christ's love,

Philip

[ckozlowski]

[quote]Again, infallibility does not mean impecability.
Again you distort infallibility. You can make it so that he is perfect all the time but your going to have to find some other people to debate because we don't believe that. I can PROVE that Peter was infallible in a limited sense. You still have his two books in your bible don't you? How could he be infallible in a limited sense if he sinned. You should rip those two books out. They must have errors in them.[/quote]

My job is to just keep planting these seeds. . .

. . . it is the Holy Spirit's to make them grow.

[quote]I think the arguement is quite effective unless you have ripped those books out. If you have not then you have a limited infallibility doctrine as well.[/quote]

i'm starting to wonder if you have any common sense. not trying to be mean.
[quote]As I have proven above, if you have Peter's two books and I will add some of his words that are clearly scripture in your bible then you have a doctrine of limited infallibility of Peter. It's just not the same one we have. Jesus said "WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven". Now WHATEVER Peter was to bind therefore must be correct by a charism of the Holy Spirit, for if it is bound in heaven.[/quote]

It was corrected by the holy spirit. Why do you think we rebuked the catholic church when it went bad?

God bless

[thessalonian]

[quote]i'm starting to wonder if you have any common sense. not trying to be mean.[/quote]

God bless you sir.

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[N/A Gone]

Chris

Where did you go to school.

The only way you can plant a seed is if you have a point. Something to make us think. So far the only thing I can think is you were pre-programmed in a missions class. I guess weeds are a seed.

[quote]Why do you think we rebuked the catholic church when it went bad[/quote]

cite what went bad, and cite the point in which you left.

Then could you compare your own faith statement with that of luther or just admit that your own autonomy is the god you serve.

Why am I even writing. You dont respond to me.

[ckozlowski]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1389144' date='Sep 20 2007, 12:56 PM']Additionally, we as Catholics could use some of our own claims to authority, if you will.

Let us say you just made a brilliant case from the Scriptures concerning the non-rock status of St. Peter.

What we as Catholics could most certainly do is to tell you that your small interpretations of Scripture do not matter. Our Church holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, our pastors have their ordination in a direct line from that of Christ and that it was the Catholic Church that assembled the canon infallibly. Our Church is not rooted in rebellion but in the very work of God. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and the Protestants with their doctrines contradict Scripture in their schisms, in their tradition of "sola fide" when James 2.24 specifically contradicts this, and that they hold to the doctrine of "sola scriptura" which is not only illogical but nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Not only would you consider these truths uncharitable, but you would be quick to point out the fact that we are begging the question. I mention these things to you so you know that my Catholic Bretheren are holding their tongues beyond what is required of them. You would do well to avoid this fallacy yourself.

In Christ's love,

Philip[/quote]

Phil, obviously you havn't been here for very long. If you look around a little but, you can see that i've been going through a crisis. many people here have helped me, from an indiscriminate objective point of view. i've come to the conclusion again that catholicism goes against the truth of the gospel. if one can't see that then i'm afraid that they need to "test all things" aka testing the scripture with many of the made up things that satan has infused into the church to lead people astray. allowing people to think that they can pray to dead people and pray to the earthly mother of Jesus Christ. Jesus was begotten, mary was a human being just like us.

you guys tell me to rip books out of my bible..what exactly is your standard to test things? the pope? we are instructed to test all things.. i really don't think we should test them with the pope, that's just me.

its not wise, considering bishops themselves have stated that they believe that the antichrist will be a pope.

Edited September 20, 2007 by ckozlowski

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='ckozlowski' post='1389167' date='Sep 20 2007, 02:35 PM']It was corrected by the holy spirit. Why do you think we rebuked the catholic church when it went bad?

God bless[/quote]

Where was your biblical authority to do that?


[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72987"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=72987[/url]

I guess in the gospel we see people leave Jesus when he teaches something that they cannot accept. Like the Eucharist in John 6:67

[quote]67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

'ckozlowski'
[quote]i've come to the conclusion again that catholicism goes against the truth of the gospel.[/quote]

-Summerize the gospel message in a few sentences. Or better yet, you have a handful of sentences to explain to me the christian message. Tell me salvation. Use it without taking ideas from your pastor or from any christian in history.


[quote]if one can't see that then i'm afraid that they need to "test all things" aka testing the scripture with many of the made up things that satan has infused into the church to lead people astray.[/quote]

-you are weighing your soul against your personal limited ability to read and understand a document 2000 years old. We live in a world where our language is different and we know writing can mean/say more than was intended. How many relationships end because of a misunderstanding? You are betting your soul on it.


[quote]you guys tell me to rip books out of my bible..what exactly is your standard to test things? the pope? we are instructed to test all things.. i really don't think we should test them with the pope, that's just me.[/quote]

The church as a whole with the living tradition. As I said earlier in this thread. We are bound to the testimony of those who were taught by the lips of the apostles. Yet you never addressed my patristic objections. But you need to understand your criticism method of understanding the bible is not christian soteriology, it is a guru in a book club.

[quote]its not wise, considering bishops themselves have stated that they believe that the antichrist will be a pope.[/quote]

-we dont follow one guy. And even if we did follow the pope then the pope leds us to the testimony of the church. (I have read alot of B16, he is augustinian afterall) also, could you cite this for me please?

[thessalonian]

[quote]you guys tell me to rip books out of my bible[/quote]

And you said I lacked common sense. Did you read what I wrote? Clearly you didn't understand it. I implied that either Peter was infallible when he wrote those words or they must have errors in them and should not be in the Bible. I quite unmistakably do not believe that they should be ripped out of the Bible and to make such a claim is nonsense. I was exagerrating to make a point.

We don't pray to dead people. Those in heaven are not dead.

Mary was a person. Very true. She can do absolutely nothing for us except interceed for us with her son and we ask that she do that. It's sad you have to blow the doctrine out of proportion.

Where have we said all things are to be tested with the pope. Your making charges that don't hold water. Your speaking out of prejudice here and not reality. We don't tune in to radio free vatican for the latest update on Catholic doctrine.

Edited September 20, 2007 by thessalonian