Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
Apprising Ministries ^ | January 16, 2008 | Ken Silva

Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: A DIFFERENT GOSPEL

In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination. But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Speaking The Truth In Love

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can for the Roman Catholics who may read this work in Christ from Apprising Ministries. I personally am former member of the Church of Rome and care very deeply about those, such as the majority of my own family line, who are trapped in this apostate man-made system of religion known as Roman Catholicism. I also fully realize that what I say may sound “unloving” and possibly even “harsh.” However, there is just nothing that I can do about that. By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.

(Excerpt) Read more at apprising.org ...


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholicbashing; culturalsuicide; emergent; gnostic; gospel; itsfuntobeabigot; letsbashcatholics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-849 next last
The goal of the author of this article and myself in posting it is NOT to bash Catholics, but to expose false teaching to the light of Truth.
1 posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:43 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Okay. So why concentrate on the “false” teachings of fellow Christians when there are a growing number of Islamists? For the life of me, I will never understand why so many non-Catholics have to take so many shots at the Catholics.


2 posted on 02/28/2008 6:29:05 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
expose false teaching to the light of Truth

Perhaps I missed it so please identify the purportedly false teaching of the Catholic Church and scripturally document how it is wrong.

3 posted on 02/28/2008 6:31:21 AM PST by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In their lust for unity the Emergent Church and post-evangelical “Protestants” are right now embracing the Roman Catholic Church as another Christian denomination.

Wow. They act as if the Catholic Church came along after they did. The RCC is the only church that can trace it's roots back all the way to Christ. That said, I don't think the word "denomination" would be appropriate. Others are a denomination of the original Church.

4 posted on 02/28/2008 6:33:27 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
"... expose false teaching..."

Does John 3:3 ring any bells?

There is no contradiction.

5 posted on 02/28/2008 6:39:47 AM PST by Enosh (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
The goal of the author...is NOT to bash Catholics

Oh yeah? Check out these other headlines in the Catholic section:
"THE ETERNALLY DEADLY FALSE HOPE OF THE APOSTATE CHURCH OF ROME"
"THE ECUMENICAL CHURCH OF DECEIT"
"THE CHURCH OF ROME AND ISLAM WORSHIP THE SAME GOD"
6 posted on 02/28/2008 6:55:14 AM PST by underground (Working overtime to keep social security solvent and potatoes on the table)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c
[ They act as if the Catholic Church came along after they did. The RCC is the only church that can trace it's roots back all the way to Christ. ]

I remember the Romans murdered Christ.. as the RCC murders church history.. Hand me down Apostles is a mental construct.. You cannot hand down Apostleship.. God appoints Aposles they are not elected or groomed by men.. The RCC began in about 313A.D. or so.. before that there were other centers of christian worship.. and there still is..

7 posted on 02/28/2008 7:00:22 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: hosepipe
I remember the Romans murdered Christ..

All part of the salvation plan.

as the RCC murders church history..

Examples and proof, please.

Hand me down Apostles is a mental construct.. You cannot hand down Apostleship.. God appoints Aposles they are not elected or groomed by men..

Indeed God appoints apostles, but He uses man to accomplish His will. You can find that in scripture.

The RCC began in about 313A.D. or so.. before that there were other centers of christian worship.. and there still is..

The RCC is the church established by Christ, whether called that at first or not. When did your church come along?

10 posted on 02/28/2008 7:22:02 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: al_c

“The RCC is the only church that can trace it’s roots back all the way to Christ.”

Really?


11 posted on 02/28/2008 7:26:37 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
[ Really? ]

LoL... exactly..

12 posted on 02/28/2008 7:35:38 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: al_c; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
[ The RCC is the church established by Christ, whether called that at first or not. When did your church come along? ]

Im not a member of a church.. Im a member of a family..
According to John 10 Jesus calls all "sheep" out of the sheep pen into a flock which is a family.. Have you been called out of your sheep pen?.. I have.. I have followed the shepards voice for a good while.. for he is the gate to the sheep pen and beckons all to come out..

Alas, some do not.. scared maybe.. thats why there is so many sheep pens with posuers posing as shepards..

13 posted on 02/28/2008 7:42:12 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: al_c

[ Examples and proof please...]
O.K.

http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm


14 posted on 02/28/2008 7:46:09 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I have to agree with Kolokotronis who bemusingly responded to the claim that “the RCC is the only church” which can be traced back to Christ.

Of course this claim is valid for four (not one) branch of Christianity: the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. All four truly and legitimately (from a secular historical perspective) make claims of apostolic origin. The beginnings as separated churches are owed to historical circumstances in the fifth and eleventh centuries.

That being said, hosepipe, neither the Catholic Church nor any of the others would agree with your assertion that there were any other established branches of Christianity (outside of these four) which has survived to the present day. As an historian, I can tell you that such a notion is patently false and unsupportable academically.

Now, your qualms with the teachings of the historic Church (be it in any of the four above-mentioned branches) are something completely different. They should be argued on their own merits. But to claim that “the Catholic Church started in 313 AD” is utter and absolute nonsense.

The Catholic Church is one of four branches of the historic, undivided Church begun by Jesus and his apostles. That is a provable fact which no historian disputes. As I said, you may argue that this Church (or any other) has “lost its way” if you like, but no sane man can deny the apostolic origins of any of these four branches of Christianity.

15 posted on 02/28/2008 7:47:49 AM PST by DogwoodSouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I am an adopted member of the same family, dear brother in Christ!

Thank you so much for sharing your insights!

16 posted on 02/28/2008 7:53:16 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
The goal of the author of this article and myself in posting it is NOT to bash Catholics

Yeah, sure. Got any oceanfront real estate in New Mexico to sell?

"This prefigured baptism, which saves you now" -- 1 Pt 3:21.

17 posted on 02/28/2008 7:58:06 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
[ Of course this claim is valid for four (not one) branch of Christianity: the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. All four truly and legitimately (from a secular historical perspective) make claims of apostolic origin. The beginnings as separated churches are owed to historical circumstances in the fifth and eleventh centuries. ]

You're wrong of course.. There is only one church from the beginning.. There can only BE one church.. There can be CLUBS however.. Jesus did not forbid clubs.. but only one church is possible.. What is the Holy Spirit, a moron?..

The church is of people called out of the clubs.. or even the world extant.. after all buddism is a club too.. You seem to have removed the Holy Spirit out of the loop, your loop..

Naah! the church is doing fine, always has been too.. The clubs however are always wrangling about something.. Many clubs do not allow the Holy Spirit in their buildings.. Oh! well, their loss.. By the way Im serious as a heart attack..

The RCC(club) became solid or chartered about 313A.D.

18 posted on 02/28/2008 8:03:35 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
John 3:5 - Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I've been told that this is allegorical, like John 6, or that the water is amniotic fluid. But the meaning here is clear and direct - water and the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, how else to connect it to Matt. 28:19?

Everything's allegorical that doesn't fit with some folks' predetermined theology! ;) And you can quote direct statements of Scripture, but somehow they don't mean what they seem to mean. The world was created in literally six solar days--dare not deny it--but "Baptism now saves us" means everything but "Baptism now saves us".

I think your quote is well worth repeating ad nauseam, so allow me to contribute to the nausea!

John 3:5 - Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

19 posted on 02/28/2008 8:14:56 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
The Gospel of the Apostles does not include the doctrine that baptism plays any role whatsoever in bringing about forgiveness of our sins and/or uniting us to Christ.
    Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved

    Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Acts 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

    Romans 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    Coloss 2:12 buried with Him in baptism

By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.

He should heed his own words and spend more time with his nose in Scripture to learn what it teaches about baptism.

20 posted on 02/28/2008 8:18:23 AM PST by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
The RCC(club) became solid or chartered about 313A.D.

Really? And where might we find this little historical "fact"?

I've read some of the Christian writings from before, during, and after that time (Eusebius, etc.) Funny how I don't seem to recall anything about it.

21 posted on 02/28/2008 8:18:59 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Claud

[ Really? And where might we find this little historical “fact”? ]

http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm


22 posted on 02/28/2008 8:27:05 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; DogwoodSouth; Dr. Eckleburg; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Strangely, I just posted something on another thread which is applicable here as a reply to your post. Here it is:

Each Christian has been given gifts of the Spirit to serve the whole body of Christ. It is wrong-headed to say that one gift is more important than another. And it is wrong-headed for one to try and do something other than that which God has gifted him and called him to do.

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also [is] Christ.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.

If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?

But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

And if they were all one member, where [were] the body? But now [are they] many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness. For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked:

That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

[Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. – I Corinthians 12:12-31

And of course the next chapter is on love!

Have you ever heard a preacher who did not have the gift of preaching? He does more harm than good.

The same holds for any person, council or assembly that holds itself to be the head of the body of Christ, the church. Christ is the head of the church. So when any one or any thing tries to be the head of the body of Christ, the result is more harm than good.

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

Christ alone is the head of the body of which I am but a member and I shall not submit to another head, which is to say, any of the doctrines and traditions of men:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. – Colossians 2:16—23

That said, I do not judge those who do submit to the doctrines and traditions of men. Sanctification is a walk.

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Corinthians 3:1-7

To God be the glory!


23 posted on 02/28/2008 8:27:17 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; hosepipe

1AD-36? Life of Jesus Christ
1AD First year in Christian calendar (a.d. = anno Domini) (see 525), Augustus
(Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus) is emperor of Rome
6 Herod Archelaus deposed by Augustus; Samaria, Judea and Idumea annexed as
province Iudaea under direct Roman administration, cap. Caesarea
6-? Quirinius: Legate (Governor) of Syria, 1st Roman tax census of Iudaea
6-9 Coponius: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
7-26 Brief period of peace, free of revolt and bloodshed in Iudaea & Galilee
9-12? M. Ambivius: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
12?-15 Annius Rufus: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
14-37 Tiberius I emperor of Rome, b. 42BC
25? Assumption (Testament) of Moses, original Hebrew extant Latin (Apocrypha)
26-36 Pontius Pilate: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
27-29? John the Baptist begins ministry (Luke 3,1-2) (15th year of Tiberius)
27-34? Jesus baptized by John the Baptist (Mk1:4-11)
33-34? John the Baptist arrested and killed by Herod Antipas (Luke 3,19-20)
33-36? Jesus' ministry
36? Jesus crucified, Friday, Nisan 14th, March 30th, [Ref: John, Unauthorized
Version/Fox] Last Supper would have been Thursday evening. (7Apr30 &
3Apr33 possible Fri/14/Nisan crucifixion dates)
36?-65? Period of oral tradition in Christianity between the time of Jesus and the time
the first gospel (Mark) is written, original Christians disperse throughout
Judea and Samaria (Acts 8,1ff), Peter leads the new Christian Church,
moves the Church headquarters to Rome
36?-67 Period Peter leads the new Christian Church, moves the church headquarters
from Jerusalem to Rome
36?-37 Paul of Tarsus has Stephen martyred and the Jerusalem church destroyed
37 Paul of Tarsus is converted (Acts 9)
37-41 Gaius Caligula emperor of Rome, declared himself god
37-41? Marullus: Roman Prefect of Iudaea (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea)
40 Paul goes to Jerusalem to consult with Peter (Gal 1, 18-20)
41-54 Claudius emperor of Rome, killed by poisoning by his wife Agrippina
44 James, brother of John, executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12, 1-3)
47-48 Paul and Barnabas on Cyprus (Acts 13, 4-12)
48-49 Council of Jerusalem, 1st Christian Council, doctrine regarding circumcision
and dietary law is agreed to by apostles and presbyters, written in a letter
addressed to "the brothers of Gentile origin in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia"
(Acts 15)
48-57? Paul writes Galations
49-50 Paul in Corinth (Acts 18)
50? Peshitta translation begun, Hebrew OT->Syriac Aramaic, (Greek NT in 400)
50? Ascension of Isaiah, original written in Hebrew (Ethiopic Bible)
51-52 Paul writes 1 Thes
51-52 Paul writes 2 Thes
53-62 Paul writes Phil
54-68 Nero emperor of Rome
56 Paul writes 1 Corin
57 Paul writes Romans
57 Paul writes 2 Corin
57 Paul's last visit to Jerusalem [Acts21]
58 Paul arrested, imprisoned in Caesarea [Acts25:4]
59 Nero kills his mother, Agrippina
60 Paul imprisoned in Rome (Acts 28,16)
61-63? Paul? writes Ephesians
61-63 Paul writes Philemon
61-63 Paul writes Colossians
61-63? Paul? writes 1,2 Timothy, Titus, known as "pastoral epistles"
62? James written by leader of Jerusalem community? (Gal 2,9?), "catholic"
epistle
62 Paul martyred for treason in Rome
62 {Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus,
thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and
Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, "sanhedrin"] of
judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah,
James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had
transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.}
[JA20.9.1,Marginal Jew,p.57]
62 Nero kills his wife Octavia and marries Poppaea Sabina
64 Great fire of Rome, started by Nero and blamed on Christians, {Therefore to
squelch the rumor , Nero
created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom
the common people called "Christians," [a group] hated for their abominable
crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had
been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment,
the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which
originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of
horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge
and are fervently cultivated.} [Tacitus Annals 15.44;Marginal
Jew;Meier;p.89-90]
64-95? 1 Peter written in Rome, by Peter the apostle?, "catholic" epistle
65-125 Period in which 4 Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and remaining epistles written
- Peter martyred before 1st Holy Gospel is written, 7 Popes before last
epistle is completed
65? Q written, (German:Quelle, meaning "source") a hypothetical Greek text used
in writing of Matthew and Luke
65-150 Didache: Instructions of the Apostles written
65-150 Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Peter

------

snip

------

Just a basic beginning timeline of the history of the Church. Only one Church follows this timeline ... the one, holy Catholic, Apostolic Church. If you'd like to see the entire timeline, I found this one here. Also, if you'd check other historical timelines of Christianity, you will see that any unbiased timeline will point to the RCC as the beginning Church. You can also look at the timeline of popes throughout history and see the unending connections.

24 posted on 02/28/2008 8:27:58 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

The Tribulation Network? I’m sure that’s a very reliable source on all things Catholic. /sarc.


25 posted on 02/28/2008 8:28:53 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

As far as you continued insistance on the erroneous claim that “the Catholic Church” (or, I guess you’d say, “club”?!?) became “chartered” in 313, I’ll have to respectfully disagree on the basis of those pesky little things called facts (a tough pill to swallow, I’m sure).

In that year (313) the joint Roman emperors Constantine and Licinius issued the so-called Edict of Milan that proclaimed religious toleration throughout the whole the Empire. That’s the kiddie history 101 version. Actually, edicts of religious toleration had already been issued incrementally throughout the divided Empire: for Gaul, Spain and Britain by Constantine in 306; for Italy and North Africa by Maxentius in the same year; and for the Balkans by the Galerius and Licinius in 311. The letter of 313 (often called the Edict of Milan) was circulated among the Roman governors of the East and did nothing more than to proclaim the Roman government’s neutrality regarding the practice of religion.

So, I am confused as to how, exactly, this date would be chosen and set up as being the point at which, in your words, “The RCC(club) became solid or chartered.”

As to your claim that “There is only one church from the beginning”, it may startle you to know that the Catholic Church would totally agree with you on that point. For your edification, here’s the “official” Catholic teaching on the matter (from 2000’s “DOMINUS IESUS”: ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH):

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27), which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.


26 posted on 02/28/2008 8:33:01 AM PST by DogwoodSouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth; Kolokotronis; hosepipe; al_c

Personally, I think the branch theory is getting into dangerous waters.

The Church was indeed one at the beginning and is still one now. However, the fact that said Church has never seen fit to rebaptize heretics and schismatics (assuming validity of course), is a direct and rather incontrovertible indication that said persons were in fact somehow joined to the Church—at least to some hard-to-define degree.

Degrees of communion is the way that some theologians are speaking about it now—perhaps that is the most appropriate way to define the relationship. *shrug*

One can’t understand “Outside the Church there is no salvation” without grappling with this crucial matter of the validity of heretical/schismatic Baptism.


27 posted on 02/28/2008 8:34:28 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Ah, so Mr. Miller writing in the 1800s. Any specific passage of his you want me to comment on?

Meanwhile, let’s think about this logically here. Where does a historian like Miller get his information? From historians that went before him. And where do they get the information? From even earlier historians.

These are what we call secondary sources.

So let’s just cut right to the chase and go to the primary sources, which are the sources that *every* historian relies on to make these conclusions, because in many cases they were the people who were actually there.

Eusebius, for example, know Constantine personally. So I think he’s got a little more weight to his opinion than Mr. Miller writing 1500 years later.

So I say again, where might we find this little historical “fact” in the primary sources?


28 posted on 02/28/2008 8:39:46 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Claud
I don’t mean to be misleading in bringing up “the branch theory.” I simply mean, by my post, to point out that these four groups (the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian) all have a valid claim to apostolic origins. The Catholic Church totally agrees with this assertion.

As I said, the reasons for (and the degrees of) any and all apparent divisions between the four is not what I was attempting to break down. I simply was pointing out that all of these four groups validly claims apostolic origins. As a Catholic, I, of course, believe the Catholic Church to be the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” Church in her fullness. Such a belief does not preclude the apostolic origins of these separated brethren, the “other lung” (in the words of Pope John Paul the Great) of Christ’s Church.

29 posted on 02/28/2008 8:42:44 AM PST by DogwoodSouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth
[ As to your claim that “There is only one church from the beginning”, it may startle you to know that the Catholic Church would totally agree with you on that point. ]

I know.. but they are wrong and right at the same time.. some roman catholics are in the church but the roman catholic church is not the church.. its a club.. or maybe even a cult.. Some practices are fully as weird as Scientology.. or Mormonism.. Thats not even speaking of the local ultra-weirdnesses around the world in various places, like all over South America.. Its a very wierd club..

30 posted on 02/28/2008 8:44:49 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: al_c
36?-67 Period Peter leads the new Christian Church, moves the church headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome

Do you have some scripture to support that ?

31 posted on 02/28/2008 8:47:29 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth

I totally understand what you were trying to say, and didn’t disagree at all with your premise. I just thought that the terminology might be confusing people.

Carry on! :)


32 posted on 02/28/2008 8:47:38 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Hey, XeniaSt ... long time no chat. See again the timeline and notice how the church was already in place before all of what we now consider scripture was even written. Also read some of Paul’s letters urging Christians to follow the teachings passed down in both written form and in tradition.


33 posted on 02/28/2008 8:49:57 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: al_c
[ The Tribulation Network? I’m sure that’s a very reliable source on all things Catholic. ]

Things catholic?...
Its simply a site that carrys Millers Church History in HTML form..

Most things (roman)catholic are wierd.. not all but most..
I mean scientology wierd..

34 posted on 02/28/2008 8:50:22 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

“Some practices are fully as weird as Scientology.. or Mormonism.. Thats not even speaking of the local ultra-weirdnesses around the world in various places, like all over South America.. Its a very wierd club”

I would have to say that a Christian who compares the “practices” of the Catholic Church to those of Mormonism or Scientology is somewhat amusing considering the fact that such groups (i.e. Mormonism and Scientology) are simply the naturaly fruits of the same rupture in the Church which produced your particular group - they are like a rotted apple which fell to the ground and curses the tree.


35 posted on 02/28/2008 8:50:54 AM PST by DogwoodSouth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

Should that title read:

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: THE TRUE (AND FIRST) GOSPEL?


36 posted on 02/28/2008 8:53:12 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Its simply a site that carrys Millers Church History in HTML form..

Millers Church History.

Most things (roman)catholic are wierd.. not all but most.. I mean scientology wierd..

That's your opinion.

37 posted on 02/28/2008 8:54:03 AM PST by al_c (Avoid the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg

**but to expose false teaching to the light of Truth.**

fyi, this is Catholic Bashing, because the Catholic Church is the Light of Truth. Otherwise, why would we have all the conversions that are taking place? (And increasing, btw, yearly?)


38 posted on 02/28/2008 8:55:01 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c
[ That's your opinion. ]

True..

39 posted on 02/28/2008 8:56:37 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: al_c

Good timeline. One that most Protestants choose to ignore.


40 posted on 02/28/2008 9:00:18 AM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I know.. but they are wrong and right at the same time.. some roman catholics are in the church but the roman catholic church is not the church.. its a club.. or maybe even a cult.. Some practices are fully as weird as Scientology.. or Mormonism.. Thats not even speaking of the local ultra-weirdnesses around the world in various places, like all over South America.. Its a very wierd club..

LOL...well my stars, apologies for offending your white American Protestant sensibilities!

And rock and roll praise bands on Sunday...you don't think THAT'S weird?!

41 posted on 02/28/2008 9:01:28 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Claud
but "Baptism now saves us" means everything but "Baptism now saves us".

I'm trying to think of Scripture where the person was baptized prior to belief. I think that in all instances those baptized were adult believers and it was done after a profession of faith.

42 posted on 02/28/2008 9:02:11 AM PST by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: al_c
Peter leads the new Christian Church, moves the church headquarters from Jerusalem to Rome

citation please.

43 posted on 02/28/2008 9:05:31 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (you shall know that I, YHvH, your Savior, and your Redeemer, am the Elohim of Ya'aqob. Isaiah 60:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

Of course. Why would an adult be baptized if he/she didn’t believe? That might even be classed a sacrilege.

Acts 16 mentions someone’s “entire household” being baptized. That may well have included young folks—we’re not sure but it’s possible.


44 posted on 02/28/2008 9:08:35 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Claud; hosepipe
So I say again, where might we find this little historical “fact” in the primary sources?

Why not rely on the one source we should all be able to agree on for accuracy, Scripture.

Rome as the center of power in the early church only emerged later.

45 posted on 02/28/2008 9:09:06 AM PST by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Claud
[ well my stars, apologies for offending your white American Protestant sensibilities! ]

I am not a protestant.. But are we talking Micheal Jackson white, Tony Brown white, Julian Bond white, or Betty White white?.

46 posted on 02/28/2008 9:12:35 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
[ Rome as the center of power in the early church only emerged later. ]

Just a church among many churchs and church centers also.. Its always been so..

47 posted on 02/28/2008 9:16:30 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Acts 16 mentions someone’s “entire household” being baptized. That may well have included young folks—we’re not sure but it’s possible.

Anything is possible, but where Scripture is clear it is an adult that is baptized after a profession of faith.

Why would an adult be baptized if he/she didn’t believe? That might even be classed a sacrilege.

Then the real question is when does the Holy Spirit indwell a believer. Is it after belief, or baptism. If the Holy Spirit indwells believers prior to baptism, how can the act of baptism doing anything that the Holy Spirit hasn't already done?

If you become indwelt by the Holy Spirit prior to baptism and a church teaches otherwise wouldn't that teaching be a false teaching?

48 posted on 02/28/2008 9:18:52 AM PST by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Just a church among many churchs and church centers also.. Its always been so..

I agree.

I don't believe a historic lineage, if it can be trusted as accurate, in any way indicates special powers. I haven't seen this in Scripture. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit that glues us together as one.

49 posted on 02/28/2008 9:22:34 AM PST by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Different? Different from what? From the author's "Gospel"? Undoubtedly.

But, as I have had to say several times in the last few weeks, all of the doctrines that the author (and, presumably, you, as well, Manfred) holds which are at variance with the Catholic Church's take on things are no more than 500 years old, with many of them having a considerably more recent vintage than that. This, alone and in itself, doesn't prove that the Catholic Church's doctrinal stances are correct, either, but the 1500 year "disconnect" of your novel doctrines from the time of Christ should give you cause for concern about the "legitimacy" of your own positions.

For the Catholic Church's doctrinal stances, there is an unquestionably older pedigree. The writings of the Early Fathers, from the late 1st Century to the 8th Century, corroborate - even at the surface level of exegesis - the overwhelming preponderance of current Catholic teaching, and even what's "left' after an initial cross-referencing has traceablility. Certain conclusions from this objective fact may be drawn!

It is therefore the height of error and arrogance for this author to trumpet his presumptions about "another Gospel." If Jesus meant what He said in Matthew 16:18 (that He would build His Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) and St. Paul meant what he said in 1Timothy 3:15 (about the "Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"), then there is a more than implicit doctrinal "indefectability" involved in the Church's very existence. If Jesus is God, then this conclusion of indefectability is unavoidable. If He is God, He must both mean and expect to fulfill His promises. He is God. Therefore, He spoke the truth about His church! It is the supreme irony that your very position on the Church must imply that either Jesus didn't mean what He said (a rather cavalier position for God to take on such an important point!), or He was a total liar and fraud who was in no position to fulfill what He promised! Does God provide for what He establishes or not? Does not this providence of God presuppose that the doctrines of His Church that have existed from the beginning are what he intended, as opposed to doctrines that have only begun to exist 1500 years or more after His ascension???

In short, it matters little what your author has to say. Yes, his take on the Gospel is radically different from the Catholic Church's. But that difference is reflected in his Gospel's relative novelty, and therefore speaks to its illegitimacy. It is impossible that Jesus Christ would create a Church, endow it with an inerrant Scripture, and then leave that Church to disintegrate into "apostasy" barely a minute after the Last Apostle drew his last breath. Yet that is what one must conclude to suppose that the Johnny-come-lately, post-"Reformation" Gospels (Which one, BTW? They are legion!) have any legitimacy and are what Christ Himself desired.

In summary, the Catholic Church has demonstrable continuity in its teachings going back to the beginning. The concept of Divine Providence by itself presupposes that God would properly guide the Church He cared to establish. To think differently is to force one to conclude that either Jesus didn't care enough, or that He was a liar and fraud. No Christian, of whatever stripe, I presume, would ever willingly make such a charge. Therefore, it behooves all Christians to get with the program and do the honest research necessary to get themselves into the doctrinal continuum that extends back to Christ and the Apostles. To do anything less, when the truth of it can be reasonably suspected, is spiritual death. To do anything less, even in total "invincible ignorance," is still to go objectively against the will of God.

50 posted on 02/28/2008 9:23:14 AM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 801-849 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson