Posted on 01/04/2018 10:53:07 PM PST by JockoManning
Speaking for myself, differences such as whether clergy can marry or not are not an issue. Differences on the frequency of observing the sacrament are not an issue.
Sola Scriptura is the issue. There is value in the writings of the Saints, and in writings of Martin Luther, Calvin, Wesley. But they are no more authoritative than the book of Mormon. The 66 books of the Bible are authoritative. The Apocrypha are at the level of the writings of a Saint...worth reading but not authoritative.
The differences between the various English translations of Scripture are minor and not a real issue.
Joint Bible Studies could be a start.
Why would we PROTs want to?
As far as I know; the FOLLOWING is STILL in force...
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Heck; you can't even get the divided Catholics to agree on what their chosen leader is saying/doing/thinking/believing.
HMMMmmm...
Just WHERE is THIS "quote" found?
The rock is Peter's faith.
For starters, the understanding of the Mass where Christ is called down from Heaven by the priest to be placed upon the altar so He can be sacrificed again and again and again and again in contradiction of Hebrews.
| John O' Brien, Roman Catholic Priest in the Faith of Millions. | Hebrews 9:24-28 | Hebrews 10:11-13 |
| When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. | 24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. | Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. |
Problem with this is Unam Sanctam. It claimed authority for the pope over the spiritual and temporal powers....unless you're willing to say Unam Sanctam is somehow void.
No, the question is the one Jesus put to the disciples....Who do you say I am?
He's not going to be interested in what church you belonged to.
And only the Catholics and Orthodox even claim to have institutional continuity back to Christ and the Apostles. There are no other possible candidates.
And as has been demonstrated Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy don't agree on the some of the "big" issues between the two. So which one is correct?
The Catholic continues to labor under the belief that longevity is an indicator of accuracy. As has been demonstrated that is not the case. So much of Rome's theology has "evolved" over the years.
Except some of those minor differences have lead to a lot of bad theology in Roman Catholicism...for example, their rendering of Genesis 3:15.
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Gen 3:15 Douay-Rheims.
Douay-Rheims is the only major translation to render the text this way. The remainder of the translations render the passage as either "he" or "it"...never she.
It is admitted this is an error of translation by the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
This has resulted in Rome placing a great deal of emphasis on the role of Mary in terms of salvation and the daily life of the Roman Catholic.
I do not mean any disrespect, but the Pope
is the Vicar of Christ, this is what the
Church teaches.
This means that the Pope represents Christ
here on earth, wouldn’t this be like an apostle going
to a pagan Church and sharing his concern
that Jesus was not quite going the route
we think he should. hi
I believe in Jesus who is now the christ, if
I am not happy with what he is doing who am I
to turn to? No one.
If I decided that Jesus was all wrong my belief
in him would perish and I would no longer believe.
The Catholics has accepted that the Pope is Christ
here on earth, if they now can not except that it
must be one of two things, they are either wrong or
they are in a wrong church.
If the Pope was ordained by God in the first place
he still is.
And you know, or as you ought to know, our position on the answer to that question is the same one orthodox Christians have always held and taught.
He's not going to be interested in what church you belonged to.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
And as has been demonstrated Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy don't agree on the some of the "big" issues between the two.
I don't know what "big" issues you're talking about, but the ecclesiology is largely compatible, while not compatible at all with the Protestant "invisible church" idea.
This -- and you are the poster I had in mind -- is a blessedly perfect example of the utter disrespect of telling us what we believe.
You aren't the authority on what Unam Sanctam == or any other Catholic magisterial document -- says, or what it means. I'll take someone like Bishop Schneider's opinion on that over yours all week long, and twice on Sundays. You want to tell me that he's ignorant, or that you know more about Catholic doctrine than he does? Good luck.
And cherry-picking three verses of Scripture is not a detailed study of the history of the early Church.
Roman Catholics deem the Pope as infallible, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.
Roman Catholics believe that Mary is free from original sin, while Greek Orthodox believers don’t.
Doctrines can be changed in Roman Catholicism, as opposed to Greek Orthodox.
Unlike Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox believers do not accept the concepts of purgatory and Stations of the Cross.
Latin is the main language used during Roman Catholic services, while Greek Orthodox churches use native languages.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/differences-between-the-roman-catholic-and-greek-orthodox-churches/
This -- and you are the poster I had in mind -- is a blessedly perfect example of the utter disrespect of telling us what we believe.
All I do is quote Unam Sanctum. I read how it was understood when written and post that.
Are you suggesting it has somehow changed?? Or that it was issued in error??
You aren't the authority on what Unam Sanctam == or any other Catholic magisterial document -- says, or what it means. I'll take someone like Bishop Schneider's opinion on that over yours all week long, and twice on Sundays. You want to tell me that he's ignorant, or that you know more about Catholic doctrine than he does? Good luck.
It is understandable that Roman Catholics don't like Unam Sanctam.
When he goes astray we have every right to ignore him?
.......................................................
If the Pope’s were ordained by God as vicar of Christ
wouldn’t that be just like ignoring Christ?
As a non-Catholic Christian, to me any dialogue as you seek is a non-starter, due to an emphasis I think most RC have as regards this statement/qustion:
“What understandings, perspectives, deeds would the RCC’s on FR wish to successfully transmit into the observant and sincere Evangelicals on FR about this broader situation affecting us all and the globe—Christians and non-Christians? “
I see all matters regarding the Roman Catholic Pope as Roman Catholic matters and not matters affecting the rest of Christianity at all. Other Christians may have their opinions, but neither their faith nor their institutions are directly affected or even ought to be indirectly affected by the actions of the Roman Catholic Pope, other than by what I’d consider a wrong-headed approach allowing them to.
It's not ours. And this thread is not to debate those issues that have stood for 1600+ years.
We believe that Christ died for Relationship and THAT'S what He set up--"Where 2 or 3 ... I am in the midst of them." We don't think that sounds like an institution.
Nevertheless, that's not the topic of this thread. You have abundant posts on that score from way back hereon.
Nice analogy. Thanks.
I don’t think that’s new information.
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.