Posted on 11/03/2003 9:42:20 PM PST by RnMomof7
No evasion, just an honest answer.
Does my church think WHAT is ok? Do you mean Divorce?
Divorce isn’t the issue, re- marriage is. Does your Church teach that is OK?
Re: The killing of "heretics", are you really that ignorant of history?
No however you must be. You fail to provide source material. You’re all bark and no bite.
“And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free. “(John 8:32)
2. (from post #557)..."Catholicism is unified. Any act of dissent is an act of ceasing to be Catholic. There are no dissidents in the Catholic Church. There are only Protestants who have not yet accepted what they are."
3. "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder."
4. Pope Gregory was a man by definition of his nature and constitution.
5. By #1 and #4 (substitution), Pope Gregory, also a man, put many marriages asunder.
6. By #5, Pope Gregory violated #3.
7. Insofar as marriages were conducted with Church sanctioned marriage vows prior to Pope Gregory, Pope Gregory by #3 was a Protestant.
8. As a Protestant, Pope Gregory severed the lineage of the Church from Jesus Christ.
Since your theory rests on her cut-and-paste saying that Pope Gregory "dissolved" the marriages, perhaps looking at the situation from his own words, and not those of a Protestant, would be fair?
(That is, I don't think "dissolve," as you take it, is an accurate representation of what was done. Which makes the rest of your conclusions false as well.)
SD
Yes, now. Duh. The Orthodox refused to live up to their profession of belief in Rome's primacy. So they now teach somethign incompatible with Catholicism. Duh.
But your claim is about what the "unified" Church taught before the Schism versus what the Catholic Church teaches today. There is no change.
Your charge, for the third time, is completely fatuous.
SD
The Church wasn't created in the chaotic, contradictory state it is in now. It was created to teach the Gospel to the world.
The very fact that there is a teaching to be taught and learned means that the Church must be more than just an amorphous group of whoever happens to believe in Christ. A teaching function implies teachers and students. In order to have teachers, there must be authority. There must be the ability to say "This is what we believe. This is what is true."
Jesus sent out His Apostles to teach the world. Matthew 18:17 shows that there was expected to be some "Church" that we were expected to listen to.
How this Biblical idea becomes "the Church is just everyone who believes," in some sort of lowest common denominator, egalitarian blob is beyond me.
Did Jesus really send the apostles out to teach repentence by belief in Him and nothing else? Are all of the rest of the issues that all the denominations disagree about really unimportant? Is there no more Truth to be taught?
SD
"No. The church is the body of Christ on earth. All members are equal. All together guard the faith. The leadership of the church does not create or impose beliefs. Instead, all believers, including those in leadership, are under the authority of the common faith.
Which denomination possesses this treasure?
The early consensus is the heritage of every Christian of any denomination. It is something that we all go back to.
May we go back to it, retrieve the things we like, disregard those we don’t, and create Christianities that suit our times and temperaments?
No. This places unwarranted confidence in one’s own wisdom and ability to discern. It underestimates how brainwashed we are by our surrounding culture, as we affirm what is currently fashionable, and recoil from, or fail even to perceive, what is not. The wisest course is to submit to the accumulated faith of our older brothers and sisters, to immerse ourselves in it, and gradually to comprehend more as we ourselves are changed.
Is nothing to be gained by choosing and implementing ancient elements we like? Elements plucked out according to taste are like flowers in a vase. They are more lovely than no flowers at all, but they have no roots and will wither. It is like sewing an old patch on a new garment. It is a better solution than having a hole in your pants, but it is not a lasting solution. It will not bring you to the goal. Is the goal to develop spotless doctrine?
No. The goal is to know Christ.
Do we know Christ in order to possess correct ideas?
No. The goal of knowing Christ is to be healed and transformed. It is to partake of the presence of Christ, to dwell "in Him." It is to take on His fire like a coal in the furnace.
Is this best done by reading theology and history?
No. It is best done by praying. This can include using the ancient prayers in private, and standing in the flow of corporate worship. Prayer should also be the context for reading Scripture or other works. We are transformed by the renewal of our minds. This takes time. It includes the whole self, reason, emotion, and body. It happens slowly, by immersion in the living faith."
Where in Scripture did Jesus send the Apostles out to develop a consensus about the shared ideas of the community? After all they wouldn't dare impose or formulate doctrinal beliefs, right? Did Jesus send them out to teach the truth, or to find out what everyone already believed and could compromise on? "Go and teach the nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if they all agree that baptism is a worthwhile endeavour and can agree upon the ages and methods used thereof, and are reasonably in agreement with the idea of a Triune God."
What is this "faith" that you are guarding, and how can you express it without "knowing correct ideas" and without "spotless doctrine"? Is it just a warm feeling?
SD
Where in Scripture did Jesus send the Apostles out to develop a consensus about the shared ideas of the community? After all they wouldn't dare impose or formulate doctrinal beliefs, right? Did Jesus send them out to teach the truth, or to find out what everyone already believed and could compromise on? "Go and teach the nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, if they all agree that baptism is a worthwhile endeavour and can agree upon the ages and methods used thereof, and are reasonably in agreement with the idea of a Triune God."
Of course, Jesus sent the Apostles out to the world with His message.
The discernable identity of the Apostles as 'those which had been with Him' served to guarantee the validity of their teaching.
What is this "faith" that you are guarding, and how can you express it without "knowing correct ideas" and without "spotless doctrine"? Is it just a warm feeling?
A good question, I believe.
Here I have two men before me, each claim to espouse the teachings of Jesus.
One of them may claim to be the Pope.
Knwoing that God is not a respecter of persons, ... how do I discern which of them is truly teaching what Jesus taught ?
Addendum to post # 670
Let's say that I happen to have the accepted writings of the original Apostles on hand.
Do I listen to he whose teachings line up with what I find in the writings of the Apostles ...
... or ...
... do I listen to he whose teachings are not all clearly delineated in the Apostles' writings, ... but who claims that authority was given to him over the church ?
Right. And, presumably, as soon as they all died, everyone they taught and entrusted to lead turned into raving morons.
(Who somehow managed to canonize the NT centuries later.)
Knwoing that God is not a respecter of persons, ... how do I discern which of them is truly teaching what Jesus taught ?
I guess I'd ask what Jesus would do. We have Scripture showing us exactly what he would do, and we have no inkling in Scripture that He intended a Book to substitute for His Church.
SD
Right. And, presumably, as soon as they all died, everyone they taught and entrusted to lead turned into raving morons.
Of course, this is erroneous, ... but the Apostles taught a lot of people.
I guess I'd ask what Jesus would do. We have Scripture showing us exactly what he would do, and we have no inkling in Scripture that He intended a Book to substitute for His Church.
The New Testament scriptures are, most basically, a testimony of the original Apostles of Jesus.
Certainly such writings would not take the place of the church, ... but they should help one discern who to give ear to, among all those who claim to speak for the church.
So Paul, for example, didn't put Titus in charge of a group? There was no sort of authority at all once the Apostles died?
It's silly to egalitarianise the early Church, and you know it.
Certainly such writings would not take the place of the church, ... but they should help one discern who to give ear to, among all those who claim to speak for the church.
You've leapt over the central question, on whose authority do you accept the authenticity of the Apostles' writings?
A reasonable man would examine the claims of both Pope and the "mere Christian." It is easy to cherrypick verses and dismiss the papists, yet a curious man would wonder if there is something more to this than meets a first reading. Many begin their journeys with the "simple truths" of the evangelical, only to discover the deeper truths the Catholics have always proclaimed.
It all begins with the simple question, did God create a Church to teach us or not? If He did, where is that Church?
SD
It's silly to egalitarianise the early Church, and you know it.
It is accepted that there were many leaders in the early church, ... as there are today.
You've leapt over the central question, on whose authority do you accept the authenticity of the Apostles' writings?
This question is not an issue ... because there is no disagreement (within the church) on whether the Apostles' writings are authentic or not.
The church (of that day) which authenticated their writings is, generally, perceived to be worthy of the trust of Christians.
A reasonable man would examine the claims of both Pope and the "mere Christian." It is easy to cherrypick verses and dismiss the papists, yet a curious man would wonder if there is something more to this than meets a first reading. Many begin their journeys with the "simple truths" of the evangelical, only to discover the deeper truths the Catholics have always proclaimed.
It all begins with the simple question, did God create a Church to teach us or not? If He did, where is that Church?
I would not disagree. I don't believe that there is anything wrong with looking at the evidence.
Mind you ... there is a lot of evidence out there ... and not all of it reflects favorably upon the Catholic church.
No, that would be your vaunted logic that would lead you to that conclusion.
What do you think the canon says, and what do you think this "massive change" is?
SD
Failed to live up. You mean they rejected it as soon as Rome started claiming it and never came around. They'd never heard of it. Which is why only some of the orthodox Church followed this teaching and only after being lied to and duped with countless forgeries. Even the Orthodox sites point this out. Even when you get close to the truth you wrap it in deciet.
But your claim is about what the "unified" Church taught before the Schism versus what the Catholic Church teaches today. There is no change.
This is a lie. The Orthodox church never taught unum sanctum. Unum Sanctum before it was altered, stated that Anyone claiming to follow Christ must submit to the bishop of Rome and without such submission they could not be saved. Now we know the "invincible ignorance" clause has since been added. So you can spare us claiming that was part of the original. Orthodoxy taught one form of salvation and you teach another. Yours developed long after theirs. One of you is in error.
Your charge, for the third time, is completely fatuous.
Ah, there's an authoritive statement. You've dodged the issue and keep saying there is no error. Gee, what shall I say? "Is too. Is too. Is too"? or perhaps I'll just point back again to the facts. They taught and continue to teach a form of salvation that doesn't include Unum Sanctum (in any of it's forms). So salvation either requires submission to the schismed pope or it doesn't. It can't be both ways. And the "invincibl ignorance" clause don't make it any better. It compounds it. You guys went from saying submission was required - period - to submission is required unless you're ignorant of the Pope's existance or authority. You taught one thing, then taught another. The two are not compatible any more than your teaching and that of orthodoxy is compatible. You're in error on one of your two to three stances. And one of you between you and orthodoxy is in error. That's two. Two for the price of one. So the church is in error either for teaching unum sanctum or for not teaching it. You can't have it both ways. If the church is in error, it isn't protected from error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.