CatholicAndFanatical Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Your following sentences clarify your point. However, I wanted to point out that Christ did, in effect say, "upon this Rock I will build a [Perect] Church." Because he followed with, "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The Church is perfect. It's members are not. I know you already said that, and meant it. But just to be clear... Point taken, however I know the Church Herself is Perfect, I was referring to the people in it, I could of used a different way of saying it..my bad. The reason why I said that the leaders were doing what they were called to do is the fact that God knew this would happen, like you said. It was in His divine plan for this to happen. Jesus didnt come here to live until he was 80, God's Divine plan meant for Him to die when He chose it was right. I guess a good example would be when the Holy Father was shot back in the 80's. His attacker went to prison, but when the secrets of Fatima came out it mentioned something about the Pope being shot. Based on this evidence they said this gentlemen was obeying a divine call, if you will..and therefore let him out of prison. Im sure God didnt WANT the Pope to be shot, but allowed it to happen for our better Good. The same with the Jewish and Roman Leaders I was speaking of.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undercover Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Yo, I don't deny God's Church, I just deny that the Church is the Catholic traditions, rather I see the Church as all believers and followers of Christ. I just don't agree that Christs purpose was to throw away all the Jewish traditions just to start up a new system of traditions, instead I see that he came here to show his grace and make one sacrifice to do away with the old way of sacrifice. And the reason he came in person was to show the importance of relationship, which was what was really missing in the old system at that point. This is a bit off topic from the Sola Scriptura topic that this was started on, so I won't continue it here. Maybe later I'll start a new topic.. but I'm just not ready to start something so controversial yet.. so please leave that topic alone for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 its not controversial and its not anything new we have a nicely handy search engine button for the phorum if you want to try it out... it works i used it! B) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Nothing controversial about that topic at all. The Church Christ founded is a fullfillment of the Jewish religion. If Catholics werent Catholics, we'd be Jewish. and this does have something to do with Sola Scriptura, although probably a minor relationship but how did you get to the point to where you can say you dont need the Church? You are trying to have a relationship with Christ, which is very important, but you dont want to go through the means that Christ laid out for us to have a relationship with Him. If you dont use the Church as the Sole Authority, then you must be using the Bible as the Sole Authority. But then again, even in the Bible it states that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not Scriptures. You could use the argument that all the believers are considered the Church..but then that would not make any sense when Christ says in Matthew 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.".. because if he is already telling them, meaning two or more believers..wouldnt he already be telling the 'church' if the 'church' is a body of believers?? Who then would be the Church that Christ was referring? The Apostles of course, the Authority that was laid down by Christ to be passed on for all generations just like in Acts 1:20 " … His office let another take." so what He was saying is that If he doesnt listen to a believer on whatever, take him to the Authority of the Church, a Priest, Bishop, etc..and if he chose's not to even listen to the Church (Authority) then cast him out. So you cannot discount the Church and go off on your own expecting to have a relationship with Christ. You are fooling only yourself. CatholicAndFanatical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Yo, I don't deny God's Church, I just deny that the Church is the Catholic traditions, rather I see the Church as all believers and followers of Christ. THen you deny the scriptures. Because the Scriptures came from the Church, and it is the Church that guarentees Scripture. Scripture is reliable because the Church is reliable and the Holy Spirit guarentees the Church is reliable. We have one faith, one baptism, not 32,000 and counting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 The Church is a body of believers...but its a body of people who believe in the doctrines established by Jesus Christ and passed down by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers. How can you call the Church a body of believers, when some of those "believers" believe in doctrines they created themselves?! They believe in their own ideas, not the Sacraments instituted by Christ to give grace to his followers... And regarding judging the Church by some of its (lukewarm) members, remember that many who rejected Christ, rejected Him because of the company He kept; tax collectors and prostitutes, etc. You should take care not to reject His Church for the same age-old reasons. The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ. He doesn't have more than one bride. He has the One, which He Himself chose and founded. There is no other Bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25 Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Yo, I don't deny God's Church, I just deny that the Church is the Catholic traditions, rather I see the Church as all believers and followers of Christ. Ahh......but..... Did not Christ set up an earthly head who was given the "keys to the kingdom"? (Matthew 16:19) When there was a dispute in Acts 15 did not the apostles (from whom the present-day Roman Catholic bishops get their authority in an unbroken line of apostolic succession) render a binding decision? As you can see Christ DID found an organized religion!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 (edited) And one must wonder, what oral traditions do the protestants possess, which are spoken of in Scripture?? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it... Edited November 18, 2003 by Anna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 It doesn't say "rely on Sacred Tradition". It just basically says for brevity he left out some of the things of lesser importance. The mistake Protestants make is in believing that the Bible is an instruction book in Christianity. It is not. The Old Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. It was written over a period of about 1,000 years. The New Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of the New Israel -- The newborn Catholic Church (Romans 11:26, Galatians 6:16, James 1:1). It was written over a period of about 100 years. Christianity is based on the teachings of the Catholic Church founded by Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). It is not based on The Bible. That idea was born in the 16th century with Martin Luther and his false notion of Sola Scriptura. It's less than 500 years old. The Church is 400 years older than the Bible as we know it. She inherited the Greek Septuagint from Jesus and the Apostles, which she named the "Old Testament." The Church wrote the New Testament and collected, canonized, and preserved both the NT and the OT, which she named ta Biblia" -- the Bible. The NT is a "snapshot" -- a record -- of the life of the Church at a particular point in time -- the first half-century or so of her existence. Christian and Catholic are synonymous. It's the Protestants who are divorced from history and pretending that the Bible is an instruction book. It never was and never will be, no matter how it's twisted (2 Peter 3:16). The role of Sacred Apostolic Tradition in the life of the Church is evident in the writings of St. Paul, the earliest writings in the New Testament. Ave Cor Mariae, Likos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katholikos Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I'm pentecostal. Don't bother tailoring a list. I don't have the time to answer them. Of course, you don't. Protestants on this phorum never have time to answer questions -- because their beliefs are indefensible, and if they've been at phatmass very long, they know it! How can anyone defend a man-made religion against the religion founded by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man? Question #1 Considering that Christianity is 2,000 years old, why do you belong to a "church" that was founded on the beliefs of a group of preachers meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1914? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seek Posted November 19, 2003 Author Share Posted November 19, 2003 It seems to me that non-Catholic Christians all have one thing in common. They seem to base their beliefs on someone’s private interpretation of the bible. Whether it is their own or someone else’s interpretation. This is true of everyone from Jehovah Witnesses to Fundamentalists to non-denominational. Here is how it works… 500 – x years ago someone decided they understood the bible better then the group of people that gave it to them 1500 – x years ago. This method leads to 30,000 differing interpretations. The Catholic Church differs in the fact that they did not need to interpret the bible… they were taught by Jesus Christ Himself what His message was. They then began feeding Jesus’ sheep (at His request) through spoken and written words. They decided to group the existing writings that best served Jesus’ message and place them in a book, they called this book the bible. They continued to teach the original message through sacred tradition via apostolic succession. This method leads to the same holy message being passed down, unchanging, for 2000 + years. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Funny how it is so clear to us, but seems like a scrammbled message to the prots. Like Jesus said in John 6, you cannot come to me unless called by my Father..its clear to us because we were called and we believe. Thank you Jesus for calling us to your Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. :wub: CatholicAndFanatical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robyn Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Question #1 Considering that Christianity is 2,000 years old, why do you belong to a "church" that was founded on the beliefs of a group of preachers meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1914? Is that directed at me? Well I belong to God/Jesus. FULL STOP. For your information, churches in Australia are more accepting of each other. Yes we have denominations, but we work TOGETHER for God. Denomination is a title, a choice...etc...but GOD is the reason. Just cuz we have a different title doesn't mean we reject each other. As Undercover (I think) said, we belong to God, NOT a "church". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 You don't belong to a church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robyn Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 You don't belong to a church? I do, but I dont believe the TITLE of a church is important when GOD is the reason for your faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now