Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Calling all Catholics.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Now for the critical point. Assume for the sake of argument that Rome's claims for Peter are valid

    What significance does that have in the here and now?

    The Jews had Abraham for their father 2000 years (more or less) after Abraham's time. Rome has Peter for her father, 2000 years (more or less) after Peter's time.
    We know what Jesus had to say about the Jews' claim for their father - it's only true if you follow the path established by the ancestor in question. Even rocks can be raised up as children for the righteous ancestor.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
      What convinces you that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus? Being raised Catholic? Being a convert to the Catholic Church?
      Scripture

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ignatius View Post
        Scripture
        For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

        Your first post on this forum is one word-- "Scripture" and you expect us to believe you're a real Catholic?



        Welcome to the madhouse. You'll fit in just fine.
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #34
          It is my view that was origial to Christian thought. It changed with interpretation that Peter was the rock. Only after the reformation did what was deemed Christian thought to reconsider, in what is in my view the truth.
          Regardless of what your view on the passage is, it's confirmed historical fact that, for the thousand years before the Great Schism, the Primacy of Rome was accepted by everybody. You can argue that the Church got it wrong, but the fact that this was how it was originally understood before the Great Schism is so well grounded that even Eastern Orthodox historians and theologians admit this to be the case.
          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

          -Thomas Aquinas

          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

          -Hernando Cortez

          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

          Comment


          • #35
            I think the idea is that Peter is considered 1st among equals which is more appropriate. Peter had a headship/leadership role. its obvious. But when Rome got Arrogant is when the great schism happened. Disavowing leadership of the apostolic successors and disregarding their authority and co leadership never served Rome well
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
              But when Rome got Arrogant is when the great schism happened. Disavowing leadership of the apostolic successors and disregarding their authority and co leadership never served Rome well
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ignatius View Post
                Scripture
                Excellent. So what do Orthodox, Protestant and Baptist as examples miss that Catholics do not?
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  Excellent. So what do Orthodox, Protestant and Baptist as examples miss that Catholics do not?
                  Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?
                    Not according to those Baptists who make a distinction between Protestant and Baptist; they believe that they alone are descendants of the original church (see "The Trail of Blood").
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Not according to those Baptists who make a distinction between Protestant and Baptist; they believe that they alone are descendants of the original church (see "The Trail of Blood").
                      Oh, right, thanks for reminding me. I vaguely recall something about that. I seem to recall that some even claim to take their name from a core group of the followers of John the Baptist, or something like that.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?
                        That's a fair question. As a Protestant, I have no issue with that.

                        I'm curious, though, if that's generally returned. Do Catholics consider Protestants part of the church? I've seen some comments by Catholics (none here, in particular) that make me think a lot of Catholics don't, in fact, think that.
                        I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?
                          Is it feasible to say that Protestantism was founded on the Catholic church? And if the Catholic church is part of the original church founded by Jesus, by proxy, isn't that also true for Protestants?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                            That's a fair question. As a Protestant, I have no issue with that.

                            I'm curious, though, if that's generally returned. Do Catholics consider Protestants part of the church? I've seen some comments by Catholics (none here, in particular) that make me think a lot of Catholics don't, in fact, think that.
                            I do, but not all Catholics would. The official teaching is characteristically vague and variously interpreted. Certainly, they would say something like the fullness of the church only 'subsists' in the Roman Catholic Church and those churches that are in union with Rome. I would have to look it up to give you the current, exact language.

                            Here's the relevant section of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

                            816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

                            The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

                            Wounds to unity

                            817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

                            Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

                            818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

                            819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

                            http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
                            Last edited by robrecht; 11-19-2014, 06:56 PM.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Is it feasible to say that Protestantism was founded on the Catholic church? And if the Catholic church is part of the original church founded by Jesus, by proxy, isn't that also true for Protestants?
                              That is my view. I view the chuch as primarily local, and secondarily a communion of churches.
                              Last edited by robrecht; 11-19-2014, 06:58 PM.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
                                Can you help me out with the language here? Are they saying that those who were born into Protestant communities essentially don't know better, and thus have the right to be called "Christian", but those who were born into the Catholic Church, but who abandoned it, and then became Protestants....don't have the right to be called "Christian"? It doesn't say as much, but is that the correct reading between the lines?

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X