The Vatican announced this week that it will no longer automatically adopt laws passed by the Italian Parliament.
The move, which came into effect on Thursday, ends 80 years of automatic adoption brought in by the Lateran treaties between the Pope and the Italian parliamentary system.
The Papal office said there were too many laws in the Italian civil and criminal codes and that many of them conflicted with the Church’s principles.
Vatican City State, the smallest sovereign state in the world, will now consider laws passed by parliament on an individual basis before adopting them as their own.
The decision also applies to international treaties and follows its recent refusal to approve a UN declaration advocating the decriminalization of homosexuality.
The Roman Catholic Church has in the past spoken out against efforts to legalize same-sex civil unions and euthanasia, and the divorce from Italian law could be seen as a bid to protect the Church’s position on these and other ethical issues.
RSS
Tallguy: The Apostle's Creed is primary doctrine. I think we all can agree that a person who believes and confesses those 12 items has salvation (note, though, that catholic means "universal" not "Roman"). But to point out just one thing: If a man can refuse to forgive a sin, thereby condemning the sinner to Hell, then Christ is not our judge. If Christ is not our judge, then He died for nothing. And if Christ died for nothing, then it is all a lie. None are saved. And who was Pope when Abraham's faith was credited? Sorry, that's 2 things.
Also, no! I would NEVER die for my "denomination"! I would GLADLY die for Christ. Not for Peter, not for Mary, not for Benedict or the Borgia popes. But for Christ gladly.
feet, while some heterosexuals do practice anal sex, how in the world would you know that began with the creation of Adam and Eve?
Tallguy,
No need to be sarcastic . . . despite our disagreements, we all should be able to have a mature conversation here . . .
Pope Leo XIII said, "It has always been the habit of Catholics in danger and in troublous times to fly for refuge to Mary, and to seek for peace in her maternal goodness; showing that the Catholic Church has always, and with justice, put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God..." [Supremi Apostolatus Officio On Devotion Of The Rosary]
A humble reading of the word of God shows that this is far from being sound doctrine; it is leaven to be refused. If we need to fly for refuge or put all our hope and trust in someone, let it not be Mary, but the Lord. "But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge" (Ps 94:22). "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower" (Ps 18:2).
Whew! THANK YOU Bossmanham, I feel much better now! I urge you to study the very sound doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church, join us, worship Christ in His fullness now, and we'll see each other in heaven later. Amen!
hawk
heterosexuals have been practicing anal sex since the beginning of man. yet there are no health statistics for heterosexuals who practice this. in fact given the number of heterosexual couples who practice some form of anal stimulation and the numbers homosexual couples, in all likelihood there may be more heterosexuals practicing this form of sex than homosexuals.
I think there are catholics who are saved. I would urge them to join a more doctrinally sound church, but if they've repented and put their trust in Jesus, then scripture says they are saved.
Let me add that there are some groups which may have been counted as being among the purported "34,000" denominations who, when measured against the authority of the holy, inerrant and God-breathed scriptures and the doctrine therein, do not qualify as Christian, and are utterly rejected as parts of the body of Christ.
We should try to tread lightly on this matter. We are talking about the Church of Christ and the Holy Spirit of God. Yes Tallguy, there are many, many denominations in the body of Christ. This is the reality of it. There is no other reality. Therefore, when you slander the body of Christ and say that there is no unity, which there is, you are edging so close to saying something highly regrettable about the power of the Holy Spirit.
Tallguy, (Please explain why if you are ALL hearing from the Holy Spirit you don't have unity? There is only one Holy Spirit with only one message not 34000 messages).
I would be more than happy to after you answer those questions in my last posts . . .
"...but the Word of God is clear when it comes to dealing with sin in the life of a believer and a non-believer as well."
Amen to that, Believer. We'd be unloving if we were to ignore the sin of our brethren (or those who purport to be our brethren). The Lord has ALWAYS used human agency in the fulfillment of His will, be it evangelism or rebuking and correcting. Look at the book of Joshua: God gave the orders, the Israelites still had to go out and swing the sword. The point is to stand on the authority of the scriptures when doing so, and not on our own. It is when we rebuke on our own authority that we are in supreme danger. We outwardly AGREE with what the Bible says about every sin, and nothing more.
feet, another typical answer based on relativism, if it feels good do it as long as nobody gets hurt, but the problem is all sin hurts God and these sins along with all other sin sent Jesus Christ to the Cross to die for these sins so that we might be saved. But if you have a problem with calling sin sin then you need to tell Christ He was wrong for clearing out the Temple on two separate occassions along with rebuking Peter and leaving instructions for how to deal with suspected wayward members. But don't stop there you need to rebuke Paul for telling the church at Corinth to put out the member who was willfully sinning and refused to repent and for telling Christians that if they see a brother or sister in sin their to go to them and confront them with their sin but be careful they don't fall into sin. You can hide behind the rationalizing of this by equating it to judging other people, but the Word of God is clear when it comes to dealing with sin in the life of a believer and a non-believer as well.
Storm comes through, power goes out for several hours yesterday and YIKES...I can't even find where I left off!!!
"And in fact it would be more harmful to a person to not call sin sin in order to warn the person who is either committing or considering committing that sin or those sins",
where in scripture do you find this. and what part of your deducing something is a sin involves your interpretation.......50%, 40%,70%. yet you credit no part of it being your interpretation. how do you know that whatever part that is yours is not the yeast of the parables.
"Everytime a believer sins it distances them from the closeness and the intimacy God desires to have with them and until they repent of that sin God will not even hear their prayers nor can they have that closeness and intimacy."
you are attempting to tell another believer who is created thru the same spirit , is given the same heart of flesh, whose mind and heart have god's laws written on them, and as well, in who jesus.
you are expressing to him your beliefs.
beliefs are centered around the concept of "i". compared to all the other assets the believer has, where do you think what you ar giving him ranks. i will tell you. it is an obstacle in regards to christ.
gotta go. until next time.
feet, so if one states that judgement awaits each of us then we are guilty of judging. Plus judging a person is far different than judging sin or sinful behavior by calling it what it is in accordance with the Word of God. And in fact it would be more harmful to a person to not call sin sin in order to warn the person who is either committing or considering committing that sin or those sins, because as God's Word clearly states there are consequences to every choice we make or don't make and especially when it comes to sinful choices, we will either reap those consequences now and/or for non-believers on into eternity. Everytime a believer sins it distances them from the closeness and the intimacy God desires to have with them and until they repent of that sin God will not even hear their prayers nor can they have that closeness and intimacy. For an unbeliever if they don't accept Christ as Savior before they die they are destined for an eternity in hell. Plus as many have stated to you time and time again God's Word several times instructs us to go to brothers and sisters in Christ and rebuke and confront them in love and concern about sin in their life always remembering that restoration of the believer to oneness with God and the Body of Christ as always the goal.
again............every day i am awed by how each believer has a uniquely different humanity that entwines their understanding of their faith in christ.
do you not know that things that disturb us the most in others is because it is in ourselves.
do you think same does also apply to our judgement as well.
Matthew 7:1
[ Judging Others ] "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Luke 6:37
[ Judging Others ] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
John 12:47
"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
romans2:1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
feet, I am not rallying against the enemies of God just stating the reality of what awaits every person both the saved and the unsaved. But what cost John the Baptist his head was that he spoke against the sin of King Herod and if you study the life of the martyrs you will see that for many of them the fact that they spoke against sin and in many cases spoke to the very people who were guilty of committing those sins by name is what caused them to be martyred.
feet, if the shoe fits wear it, my post was not directed at tallguy specifically but at what I constantly hear from posters to include yourself, who have chosen to make God in their own image. Please show from the Bible where anything I said in that post that is not biblically sound. There will always be consequences for every choice we make or don't make and there will be judgement for both the lost and saved alike, for the lost, the Great White Throne Judgement where they will be judged for their sins and for believers, the Judgement Seat of Christ where our works will be judged and at the first the result will be an eternity spent in hell eternally separated from God and at the other it will determine if we will have any crowns to put at the feet of Christ in glory.
the thing that i have marveled about the martyrs, is that in every instance of their execution they never railed about the judgement that would befall their executioners but instead were concerned only that their actions were acceptable to christ.
believer
i find it interesting that you rail at tall guy for his catholic understanding and then turn around and throw out salvation with some kind of overbearing sin concept. is it your understanding that your concept of sin is god's concept of sin and that your concept of judgement is god's concept of judgement.
how is that possible......................."your thoughts are not my thoughts"
is not the difference between the sin mass of the log in our eye(which if it fell on us it would crush us,) and the mass of the speck in our brother's eye(which we would need a magnifying glass to see clearly) is our judgement.
yes we know there is judgement, who is to say how that will be parcelled out.
do we stand there and looking at our brother and credit ourselves with knowing how our brother will be judged.
tallguy, last line change will to we'll, sorry about that.
tallguy, you can only do what God allows you to do. But I think that's part of the problem with many who profess to be Christians who post on these sites, they tend to limit God and do not see Him as the all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God that He is. They prefer Him to be their Sugar-Daddy who bows to their every whim and desire or a God who is limited by the laws of nature. They forget that He is the God who spoke the world into existence, sent the Great Deluge, brought down the walls of Jericho and destroyed Sodom and Gommorah and most importantly resurrected His Son, Jesus Christ to show the world that anyone who would call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Yes, for the most part you can do, say, or think what you want or don't want, but as the sermon title from R.G.Lee says, "Payday Someday" when we appear before either the Great Whitethrone Judgement or for believers the Judgement Seat of Christ and will be held accountable for the choices we made or didn't make, the only difference being one judgement will send a person to hell for eternity and the other will be used to determine how many crowns will be able to lay at the feet of Christ in glory.
Tallguy1000 said: "As for me, I see the Catholic Church as an extension of Jesus..."
Coming under the authority of one man supreme who would be called, Sovereign Pontiff, Our Holy Father, Your Holiness, or Most Blessed Father is definitely not an extension of Jesus.
Online, you know the point I've made. Please explain why if you are ALL hearing from the Holy Spirit you don't have unity? There is only one Holy Spirit with only one message not 34000 messages.
Feet, you're right, we all have our way to worship and adore Jesus Christ. This website is getting tiring, it's the sameold discussion everytime. We would be stronger and more influencial in the world if we broke down the barriers and built bridges between each other. The world laughts at the way we don't get along.
As for me, I see the Catholic Church as an extension of Jesus and you would have to kill me before I would renounce my Catholic Faith! I hope you can you say that about your denomination?
wow............i never realized how deeply, catholic doctrine was embedded in its believers.
every day i am awed by how each believer has a uniquely different humanity that entwines their understanding of their faith in christ.
As I have witnessed, there is as much diversity in the Church of Christ as there are abominations, changes in doctrine, fundamental beliefs, 'correction' of historical interpretation, laws, offices, etc... in the Roman Catholic Church. I think one of the hardest strikes against men has been Satan's "allegorical interpretation" that he has supplanted in the early church. From this, all of the damnable heresy of the RCC and its popery has sprung forth, to the doom of uncountable millions.
Diversity in Christian denominations is nothing, really. We are called to be holy. Those who obey this calling are grounded in an unshakable foundation. Those who disobey are like ships tossed at sea, or get carried away by strange doctrines and possibly into apostasy. Personally, denomination is all about safety. Separation from the world, and from worldliness, is protection. All diversity says is that, yes, those who are justified by Christ still have free will, and some listen better than others to the convicting Spirit of God. When Christ returns, the tares will be uprooted and denomination will be forgotten. But for now, I am a Christian first. A Baptist second.
Tallguy,
Seriously, there is no need to get upset . . .
aaron.e,
Amen; nice reference . . .
Tallguy,
Why do you and others refuse to answer questions . . . ?
Which troubles you the most . . . that there are 34,000 Protestant denominations or is it that these 34,000 Protestants denominations do not accept Romes claims?
Bishop J. C. Ryle, Excerpt from "The True Church." circa 1877
"This is the only Church which possesses true unity. Its members are entirely agreed on all the weightier matters of religion, for they are all taught by one Spirit. About God, and Christ, and the Spirit, and sin, and their own hearts, and faith, and repentance, and necessity of holiness, and the value of the Bible, and the importance of prayer, and the resurrection, and judgment to come. About all these points they are of one mind. Take three or four of them, strangers to one another, from the remotest corners of the earth; examine them separately on these points; you will find them all of one judgment."
Tallguy, the body of Christ transcends denomination. The different members of the body, hands, feet, etc... are brothers and sisters in Christ. Praise God for allowing there to be unity in diversity! The body is organic, and not an institution. It acts as an organism. It follows its Head as does a human body. Institutions are man made, and contrary to the Biblical, New Testament Church. The moment we assume absolute authority or control over the body, we attempt to supplant the true Head. There can be only one Head. One Head, and many, many servants.
believer, that's childish! You know full well that God has absolutly no power over you if you choose to exclude Him from your life. He gives us free will. We can choose Him or reject Him. He has no power over that!
Did God have power over Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin? NO! These men choose to live ungodly lives, God had no influence as they were killing people.
Was the crucifixation (spelling) of Jesus active or passive? If God cares about every hair on our head, and gives us every breath, then Jesus would have been giving breath to the very men that were Crucifying him.b Yet He willingly accepted His death. This was the most active moment of His life!
Do not accept anything as truth without Love, and do not accept anything as Love without truth.
Yeah Online, you've all got the Holy Spirit within, you are all solid, and you are ALL hearing from the Holy Spirit. Then PLEASE explain why there are 34,000 PROTESTANT denominations ALL hearing from the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit tells you one thing, the guy across the street another thing, and the pastor around the corner another thing. Is the Holy Spirit Schizophrenic?
Tallguy, (Our heavenly Father would not leave His children alone to fumble around with no direction.)
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you (John 14:17, 18).
How does one fumble around with no direction if the Holy Spirit dwells within them?
tallguy, so your saying that God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present has no power over us regardless of free will?
tallguy, why would I want a catechism when I have the Word of God?
(1 Tim 3:15 The Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth)
First, Paul does identify the church as Gods household; therefore it must comprise every true Christian, not only their leaders. Next, we are told to (examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith) 2 Corinthians 13:5 . . . this council is not only for individuals but for churches as well. For example, the seven churches in Revelation 2 & 3; we read that the church of Pergamos allowed the teaching of the Nicolaitanes . . . and the church of Thyatira allowed sexual immorality into their congregation . . . etc.
Anyone or any church can claim to have or be the pillar of truth . . . what did Jesus say about truth? He said, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth (John 17:17) and when Paul visited Ephesus, who did he commit the believers to? He said: (And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified) Acts 20:32.
Notice that he did not commit them to the magisterium or to the pope but to God and His Word. So, dependence upon the Word of God is seen as the basis for a church being the pillar of truth: Galatians 1:8-9 states: (But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
(1Tim 3:1, 8, 5:17-Indentifies roles of Bishops, Priests and Deacons & Tit 1:5 -Commission for bishops to ordain Priests)
The New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a (holy priesthood) and a (royal priesthood). Again, The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) but not priests.
Tradition: What the apostles handed down to understand Scripture and to give authentic Christian worship.
(1Cor 11:2 commends them for following Apostolic Tradition)
This verse uses the word (delivered) in the past tense and cannot be used to justify extra biblical doctrines. If the traditions that the RCC teaches were so universal . . . why dont we read about them in scripture?
(2 Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep Traditions)
Again, Paul speaks of those traditions which HAVE BEEN TAUGHT . . . not WHAT WILL BE TAUGHT.
(2 Thess 3:6 shun those acting not according to Tradition)
This verse also speaks in the past tense: after the tradition which he received of us.
(Lk 10:16 Whoever HEARS you Hears me; rejects you, rejects me)
These words for all believers . . . this chapter INCLUDES the 70 disciples who when out two by two.
Infallible Church: (Jn 16:13 Spirit of Truth will guide to all truth) & (Jn 14:16, 26 Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything)
This promise is for all believers; for we read: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if ANY MAN have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9).
IHS,
Authoritative Church: (MT 28:18-20 Jesus delegates all power to Apostles)
Jesus did give authority to all the apostles . . . to teach the gospel and make disciples of every nation.
(John 20:23: Power to Forgive sins)
(1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to successors of the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority.
(1Cor 11:23-24-power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
This verse does not teach transubstantiation . . . it says: this do in remembrance of me. Also, the Lords Supper is a memorial . . . not a re-sacrifice.
(Lk 10:16 - Power to speak with Christs voice)
Everyone who is in Christ and is indwelt with the Holy Spirit can speak his word: (And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us) Luke 9:49, 50.
(Mt: 18:18 Power to legislate) & (Mt 18:17 Power to discipline)
You may want to re-read this verses in their context; start with verse 15 and proceed to verse 22. This council is for the entire church . . . it says: (if two of you); there is nothing here to suggest apostolic succession.
Hierarchy: (Eph 4:11 Church leaders are hierarchical)
Again, re-read this verse in its proper context: But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men (Ephesians 4:7, 8). These gifts were given for the edification of the church . . . these verses speak nothing of a universal bishop or apostolic successors.
PS That's His story and I'm sticking to it!
Tallguy wrote: "Our heavenly Father would not leave His children alone to fumble around with no direction."
With all due respect, Tallguy, but God did not leave His children to fumble around, but gave us Jesus as our Head and His Holy Spirit as our guide. Jesus also made clear His kingdom (the Church) was not earthly, but Spiritual. His church is not a building built on an actual rock/person, but He, Himself is our foundation. His church is His Body to which He adds His people.
"Our heavenly Father would not leave His children alone to fumble around with no direction. God in His Wisdom and love for us has established the Holy Catholic Church to guide His children. And guide us well they do. Look at the holy people this Holy Church has produced over the years."
surely you are aware that the "spirit of god" and "word of god" were throughout the entire old testament.
he didnt leave us alone, he gave us a paraclete to show us all truth. jesus's specific mention indicates a different relationship, because truth now includes christ who has been give all authority, and judgement and lives in us. if christ lives in us why the need for a special leader.
look at all the martyrs the church put to the stake, because they would not succomb to the leading of the church.
case and point was huus 100
years before luther for speaking out against indulgences
surely there were a number of popes who succombed to all manner of evils.
and it's the same with Christianity in general Believer, Christ has absolutly no power over you unless you allow it and you submit to Him. You have free will.
You mentioned the catechism you learned as a kid. I'll say it again, throw that one away, it was the Baltimore Catechism, more of a workbook. Get a copy of the Catechism today as written by the Vatican. It's an excellent read!
As IHS said, The Church of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church has the final authority over the people of God.
And all through biblical history God has left someone in charge to lead His people, for example Moses and Abraham.
It's exactly the same now, it was prophesied in Isiah, then spoken by Jesus where He spoke to Peter I will give you the keys to the kingdom and what you bind will be considered bound in heaven, what you loose....
Peter is mentioned by name 195 times in the NT, notice it's always Peter and the others, Peter and the deciples, Peter is obviously given primacy.
Our heavenly Father would not leave His children alone to fumble around with no direction. God in His Wisdom and love for us has established the Holy Catholic Church to guide His children. And guide us well they do. Look at the holy people this Holy Church has produced over the years.
I'm with IHS, I stepped away into the Evengelical world for a while, but now I thank God daily (in Mass) that I have returned and can worship Christ in His fullness through his body the Holy Catholic. Amen!
what is it about paul and the apostles writng about the spirit and the gospel that they winessed and lived in community and the magisterium writing new laws to lead believers from an isolated upscale (in some cases lavish)location that you do not understand?
do you think that authority is synonymous for infallibility?
are you not aware of all the writngs that were not included in scripture?
you repeatedly have transposed the word "teaching" with the word "traditions".
ihs, the catholic church has absolutely no power over me whatsoever unless I allow them to and the same is true with any church or denomination, the only power they have over any of their members is that which the members allow them to have.
IHS,
As sincerely as I can, I ask, is it easier to defer the resposibilities over to the Catholic church and it's heirarchy than to accept that these great responsibilities were given to the individual obedient believer in Him as a gift?
ihs, I should have also included many of the written traditions of the catholic church as well do just that.
ihs, I notice you haven't cited any biblical support to say that oral tradition takes precedence over the written Word of God, now if oral tradition does not contradict, violate, or supersede the Word of God, but rather is in agreement with the Word of God there is no problem. But the problem is many of the oral traditions of the catholic church do just that.
Infallible Church:
Jn 16:13 Spirit of Truth will guid to all truth
Jn 14:16, 26 Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything
1 Tim 3:15 The Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth
1Jn 2:27 annointing of the Holy Spirit remains with you
Acts 15:28 Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit
Matt 16:18-20 Peter is the Rock where the church will be built and he has ultimate power to bind and lose with the power of the keys
Something to note, God made all the writers of the New Testament infallible to write our Sacred Scriptures.
He made Peter infallible when Peter received revelation to allow Gentiles in, that no one need be circumsized to be saved, that they did not have to maintain Mosaic law.
Also, remember that if you have a problem with a fellow Christian then address him or her and if they will not listen then bring two or three witnesses and if they still will not listen then bring them to the CHURCH and if they won't listen to the CHURCH then they are lost correct?
The Church of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church has the final authority over the people of God.
Tradition: What the apostles handed down to understand Scripture and to give authentic Christian worship.
1Cor 11:2 commends them for following Apostolic Tradition
2 Thess 2:15 - commands them to keep Traditions
2 Thess 3:6 shun those acting not according to Tradition
Lk 10:16 Whoever HEARS you Hears me; rejects you, rejects me
Jn 21:25 Not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture(Tradition fills in the blanks or misunderstandings in scripture)Tradition also attests to how the Apostles taught.
Two places in scripture where Peter spoke about circumcision and about unclean food, he received revelation from Heaven(NOT SCRIPTURE). His decision was binding and this gives us a preliminary understanding of the teaching authority of Christ church.
Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition come from the same source: God. The Magisterium of the Church has the God given authority to interpret for God's people.
Authoritative Church:
MT 28:18-20 Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 - Power to Forgive sins
1Cor 11:23-24-power to offer sacrifice(Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 - Power to speak with Christ's voice
Mt: 18:18 Power to legislate
Mt 18:17 Power to discipline
Hierarchy:
Eph 4:11 Church leaders are hierarchical
1Tim 3:1, 8, 5:17-Indentifies roles of Bishops, Priests and Deacons
Tit 1:5 -Commission for bishops to ordain Priests
please give examples of each category
(You will all see in the Bible clearly that oral Tradition was equal to the written Word)
Where can we clearly see that oral tradition is equal to the written Word? Which verses do you suggest reading?
(If any of you would choose to read early Christian history)
This is a fair recommendation; however, not everything written in early Christian history agrees with scripture . . . in fact, one has to be quite selective about what he chooses to read.
(Scriptures and Sacred Tradition by the Apostles as binding on the consciences of all Christians.)
Again, scriptural references could help support this statement.
(The Magisterium, is the teaching authority of the Church, which started with the Apostles with Peter as its Prime Minister.)
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 (1Corinthians 12:28). I do not find any mention of a supreme bishop in this verse or anywhere in the New Testament . . .
(TRUE body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.)
How about the Passover lamb, did the literal Passover lamb transubstantiate into Christ too?
ihs
according to wikipedia belief in the infalliblity principle is not essential to being of the catholic faith, only in the authority of those at the head, which definitely scriptural and i agree with. my challenge was to the issue of infallibility and the magisterium creating laws to lead believers in the faith.
as i said before you will be hard pressed to find anywhere in scripture that supports tradition.
my understanding of tradition is, that it is anything that supports the expressing of the faith but of itself is of no lasting truth and can be discarded at will.
is it your understanding that tradition can trump scripture or is equal to it? which traditions?
As an Evangelical in Seminary and son of and grandson of Pastors in Baptist and non-denominational churches, I thank God everyday that he is bringing me closer to becoming Catholic.
You will all see in the Bible clearly that oral Tradition was equal to the written Word by how Paul exhorted this message to the early churches and we also see that this Sacred Traditions come from Christ to the Apostles. The early Church, if any of you would choose to read early christian history, accepted both Scriptures and Sacred Tradition by the Apostles as binding on the consciences of all Christians.
The Magisterium, is the teaching authority of the Church, which started with the Apostles with Peter as its Prime Minister. As second generations of Christians began the Magisterium were the Diciples of the Apostles who were made Bishops directly by the Apostles all in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Rome's preeminance as the Holiest See where all bishops must be in agreement is historically verified.
As an Evangelical, I am so excited about being in communion with Christ Prime Minister the Bishop of Rome, and for the first time receiving the TRUE body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Praise Jesus!
about my understanding .......if it is good it comes from heaven.
in a court of law the witnesses are not for the one committing the action but for the judge and the jury about that action.
feet, where do you learn your doctrine? Why would God need a witness to what He does?
maybe one of the reasons for the triune god. three entities having totally seperate identities. is that, just like in scripture, there are always 2 witnesses for what the other does.
but all being of the same spirit.
i say witness of the spirit.
because witness in the spirit of fellowship in christ is a witness in the walking in the light 1john1
how can we see, hear or acknowledge the truth unless we ar walking in the light?
the witness is not merely thru the optical eye that we know can be deceived, but thru the eyes of our hearts, thru the one who lives in us, thru indwelling spirit of that which created us.
i was blackballed from virtue on line, the anglican website, because i persisted on using objective reasoning
in discussing whether homosexuality was a sin or not.
my challengers continued to stand on the conclusions of what they called "traditional teachings" and refused to discuss those teachings point by point.
the fact that these had been teachings and they had existed for centuries was sufficient proof of their truth.
this is not the nature of the testing that 2thess5:20 is demanding. and there can be no truth without a supporting witness of the spirit in fellowship in christ.
today the anglican split is because of the reversal of those teachings. rversal that is based on biblical principles and teachings.
as of yet those who chose to split refuse any discussion about those principles.
The above article has an interesting phrase: automatic adoption. Many people today are victims of automatic adoption. They automatically accept what they are taught or what they hear.
The word of God speaks of those in Berea (Acts 17) "who were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Such were definitely not the victims of automatic adoption.
Here is an excerpt from the Catholic News Service: "On the eve of the feast honoring Mary, Mother of God, the pope said Catholics were placing in Mary's hands 'the expectations and hopes as well as the fears and difficulties that dwell in our hearts as we bid farewell to 2008 and prepare to welcome 2009.'"
Automatic adoption will accept (and do) what Benedict said, regardless of the twist to get there, but if we search the scriptures, we will find different directions concerning our expectations, hopes, fears, and difficulties:
"My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him" (Ps 62:5).
"Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the Lord"
(Ps 31:24).
"I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears" (Ps 34:4)
"Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you" (1Pe 5:6, 7).
2thess2: 13But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you[b] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
surely there is a difference between teachings who have an objective reasoning basis and traditions whose basis is without it.
gal 1:13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
you will be hard put to find anywhere in scripture that holds a positive view of traditions.
(Also the RCC bible has more books than the King James. So it is the newer Christians that made changes and broke away from the founding Christian fathers.)
The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but NOWHERE quotes or alludes to ANY of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books.
WHY?
Vsedriver says, (That is because the RCC church had a beginning before the scriptures were canon)
This is the assumption made by Roman Catholics; however, this is not the case . . . the Roman Church was a gradual development, history bears witness to the fact that many Christians worshipped in autonomous communities before its development. The first church, its growth, doctrine, and practices, were recorded for us in the New Testament.
(Since many traditions were already being practiced by Christians before the New Testament was finalized.)
Well then; it should be very easy to find these (traditions) in scripture . . . that is, if they were so well believed and intended for everyone . . . right? The physician Luke said:
(Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most SURELY believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding OF ALL THINGS from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus (Luke 1:1-3).
And, we read:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Note: Paul speaks of those traditions which HAVE BEEN TAUGHT . . . not WHAT WILL BE TAUGHT; everything that was intended for believers to believe and follow has already been penned down in scripture.
it is amazing that those who are catholic will not confront my challenges about the magisterium...... the essence and whose doings are at the heart of the catholic belief system.
it is amazing that those who are catholic will not confront my challenges about the magisterium...... the essence and whose doings are at the heart of the catholic belief system.
vse, more RCC propaganda! Please read II Timothy 3:16-17. And if I used the logic you used in your last post that would mean the Baptists were before all other churches and denominations cause John the Baptist is the first Baptist. Good thing I don't use your logic, huh?!
vs wrote: "Also the RCC bible has more books than the King James."
What are these books and who were their authors and the dates written? Please.
Online4him says: The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim my friend . . . where is your evidence? Surely you cannot find it in the scriptures; the New Testament says nothing of the many extra biblical dogmas which you cling to"
That is because the RCC church had a beginning before the scriptures were canon. the RCC church does not follow sola scriptura since many traditions were already being practiced by Christians before the New Testament was finalized. Also the RCC bible has more books than the King James. So it is the newer Christians that made changes and broke away from the founding Christian fathers.
forgiven, I believe you have totally hit the nail on the head!
believer wrote: "So with all due respect to tallguy the catechism is far more important than just a supplement to the Bible and in fact probably the opposite is true."
The Cathechism does seem to be a major component to the church itself. It also appears to give importance to the commentares of past church leaders as inspired just as the Holy Scriptures are inspired.
Tallguy wrote: "my New Living Translation Life Application Study Bible, you know the one, green cover, about 3 inches thick."
I have lots of diferent Bibles, but the one that is also a mouthful ;-) is my New American Standard New Inductive Study Bible, which I did get at my favorite Christian Book store. They knew by name there. Mine is red, because Bibles should be read. Sorry, couldn't resist that one. LOL.
Tallguy,
I am blessed either way; in my personal study or here. The majority of folks here accept the Bible as the standard rule of faith, so, there is a healthy dose of scripture being posted here for my edification.
Q: What will you do if you come across a contradiction between the Bible and your Catechism?
Jesus COMMANDS us to know what we are talking about.
Thus, Mat 16:12 "Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Paul also wrote to Timothy: 2Ti 2:15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."
You bring up a good point. Many Catholics no little to nothing about their doctrines or history. They hear it's the one true church (exclusive) and they want to belong to the exclusive group. It's human nature. I see the same thing with some of the Independent Baptist movement.
Jesus COMMANDS
tallguy, you stand and declare that the catholic church is the one true church and you know little about one of the major doctrines, purgatory, of the catholic church? Plus penance is far more than just icing on the cake as you make it sound, if a person commits a mortal sin and does not go to confession/penance they cannot take Holy Communion, so it sure sounds like penance is more than a nice thing to do.
"All I know is that the Catholic Church doesn't take anything lightly and they would not have determined this doctrine from thin air."
You will find some very interesting development of doctrine from the dark ages. I did have a chance to study the Catholic faith. In the past 100 or so years the doctrine of the church has been somewhat adjusted and correctly so.
Originally, penance for the dead was devised to raise money for the church more than 500 years ago. People would give all they had to the church for years to try to buy a loved ones way to heaven. Corrupt priests would live off this and quite well. For quite some time it was a common practice and was a very sad place in Catholic history.
With that said I think it is only fair to add that many Christian groups have their dark days. Still, there were some non-Biblical teaching throughout the Catholic Church at different times in it's history.
forgiven, unless things have changed when I was raised in the catholic church we were given a catechism in the 1st or 2nd grade and we had to know the answers, many of which have no biblical support whatsoever, plus we were required to know many of these answers before we could take part in certain sacraments. So with all due respect to tallguy the catechism is far more important than just a supplement to the Bible and in fact probably the opposite is true. But please remember that depending on where you are raised and what parish and diocese you belong to this may be somewhat different. But in the diocese of Rochester NY this was totally true. And in fact I never was given a catholic New Testament until the 8th grade.
Tallguy1000, I, as well as others, have a right to expose false beliefs and/or dangerous organizations, no matter how great or small the amount of leaven, even a right to question what seems to have only the slightest fragrance of being unbiblical.
As far as your personal attacks go, I return none, but in the future, my replies or comments may be sharpened to deal with the spirit of your attack or comments. In addition, please do not assume that every biblical rebuke, warning, or disagreement concerning Catholicism is a malicious personal attack against Catholics themselves.
Online I spend more time reading my bible, daily I'd say, plus a bible study on Thursday evenings. My catechism as I said earlier, kind of "puts it nicely" as a guide to Christian living, as a commentary to the bible, and it is recommended to be used in conjunction with the bible. If you read through the catechism, you will notice Scripture references throughout.
Now if I spent as much time reading my bible as I've spent on this site lately....
Forgiven, that's a perfect way to explain it! For me, reading through the catechism is exactly the same as when I read though my New Living Translation Life Application Study Bible, you know the one, green cover, about 3 inches thick. You can buy it at any Christian bookstore.
Commentaries to the traditions past down would be referenced in the catechism.
Tallguy,
It seems that you spend more time reading the Catechism than the Bible; why?
Thanks for responding Tallguy.
You wrote: "The Catechism is a guide to Christian living."
So very much like commentaries that we use ~ the Cathechism is the Vatacan's Commentary of the Bible? Are there Commentaries to the Traditions past down as well?
Daniel Paul, I'm still investigating and learning my faith, and thus haven't spent much time researching the Church's view on Purgatory. All I know is that the Catholic Church doesn't take anything lightly and they would not have determined this doctrine from thin air. I'm the wrong guy to ask, hopefully Fr. Fleming, or someone like Chris can join in and offer the Church's doctrine. I did pick up a book on the subject a while ago but have not read it yet.
Think of Penance this way. If you stole someone's car and smashed it up, got caught, repented, and asked the owner's forgiveness, and they forgave you thus all is well. Except since you are repentant, you most likely will offer to repair the damage to the car. It's kind of like that with penance. You are forgiven, and Christ has atoned for your sin. There is Nothing you can add to His Atonment for your sins, thankfully He has done that for you. Yet you can do your part to personally repair the damage your sin has caused to yourself or to someone else, in a small prayer for someone, or to maybe read a short scripture that would apply to the sin you have committed, etc. It's no more than that.
Forgiven, the Bible still rules. The Catechism is a guide to Christian living. I bought my first copy only about a year ago, and WOW I was really impressed! It's incredibly well written, speaks of Life in Christ, Christian Prayer, and a guide to the way we celebrate, worship, and profess our Faith, etc.
Pick up copy if you enjoy reading. You might not agree with all of it, but I'm willing to bet you'll see wisdom in a lot of it. Books stores like Barnes & Nobel, or Chapters up here in Canada usually carry a copy for less then $10.
You can also get it for free online at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Ok, Tallguy...so what's the deal with penance and pergetory (like I spelled those right...)?
Tallguy,
Real question ~ Does the Cathechism trump that Bible?
Hey Daniel Paul, you're misinformed about our salvation being Jesus ++
The following comes directly from the Cathechism of Catholic Church as officially written by the Vatican:
1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.
1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life
(To think that God would not communicate to us further truths about the mysteries of salvation in all that time, knowing our quest for knowledge of Him doesn't make sense.)
What doesnt make sense is claiming to believe that the scriptures are the very words of God and then say they do not sufficiently convey the message of salvation. I have spoken to many Catholics who say that the scriptures do sufficiently reveal Gods plan of salvation. We do not need to add additional teachings that contradict the already delivered and inspired Word of God.
As you said, it is a matter of faith and this is what Catholics believe . . . I have no hard feelings and do not mind if someone disagrees with me, however, expect more discussions like these to continue so long as Catholics come and try to persuade us that your church is the true church and that we need to join.
(The Council of Nicea determined which Sacred Texts were, indeed, sacred, which were consistent and would become the foundation of Christian belief.)
The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated;
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical NOT BECAUSE SHE subsequently approved them by HER AUTHORITY after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and WERE AS SUCH committed to the church. (First Vatican Council - First Vatican Council, session 3, chapter 2).
The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, it CONFIRMED the identity of the canon which ALREADY EXISTED and Christians all had already accepted.
(The problem Bible literalists. . .)
Why should Christians take the Bible literally . . . because the Lord Jesus Christ took the scriptures literally? During his ministry we see Jesus constantly quoting from the Old Testament demonstrating his high view of scripture. One phrase that he repeatedly used was, (it is written), and scripture records the Lord using this phrase FORTY SIX times; the persistence of this repeated phrase underlines its importance. Where do we read of Jesus authoritatively quoting tradition?
Also, the New Testament writers were literalists and spoke the following with certain conviction: in Johns epistles, for example, we are told that we (know) the truth-(1John 2:211; 2 John 1; John 8:32), Paul speaks of coming to a (knowledge of the truth)-2 Timothy 2:25; 3:7-8; 4:4, the writer of Hebrews speaks of a (knowledge of the truth)-Hebrews 10:26, and Peter speaks of (obedience to the truth)-1 Peter 1:22). If truth is allegorical, uncertain, elusive, out-of-reach, lost on us as we live in our own private worlds of (post) modern reality, then what on earth are the apostles talking about?
(We don't read about Joseph's death in the Bible, but surely, we can assume he died.)
It is no miracle that people die; this is a natural and anticipated reality . . . however, someone being translated or resurrected, well, that is a divine act of God. You are right, it is a matter of faith and this is what Catholics believe but when Catholics say, our church is the true church and try to persuade me to join . . . I must examine this faith as I would any other and determine its claims and act accordingly.
father fleming and anyone else
"The Church has a heirarchy. Yes. It ahs since the days of the Apostles adn it has evolved over the centuries and does define spiritual matters of faith and morals for Catholics, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. The evolution of Christianity didn't stop when the Bible was finished, just as man's progress has not frozen in time since the Resurrection. It is God's plan that we move forward adn that doesn't mean forgetting Scripture, but interpreting it anew to meet new days and new challenges that were never foreseen in the first century."
im not talking about past sins im talking about today sins. im saying that the process the magisterium is engaged in is against the new covenant of christ. that is, being engaged in creating maintaining a new set of laws for living in christ.
do think that pau, after having said, we died to the law then turned around in the epistles and created a new set of laws for us to be led by. can you credit peter , john and james with the same. ..............................of course not ....................................then why should the magisterium do the same................ to.make laws ...............laws that are deemed to be unchallengable. by their very nature of being unchallengable and infallible they attempt to trump paul's words in romans that we are to be led by and serve of the spirit. you are saying you must in addition , be led by serve our infallible laws. by characterizing them an in fallible you are characterizing the church's human understanding as being christ.
there is only christ................................. there is not christ and also the magisterium which is also christ.
and now by deeming your understanding of homosexualty as infallible, the church has dug itself a pit of being forced, on this issue, to abandon the teachings of christ, to continue to support this understanding.
what do you do with jesus's parable about fruit, how do you now distinguish the fruit of the spirit, you can no longer abide by the witness of the spirit........"that which we looked, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have touched".
you have forced yourselves of not being able to honor another's life experiences, the essence of fellowship for the sake of your theology.
how do you now explain how homosexuality comes against the 2nd commandment the essence of all the law of the new covenant.
as in romans 1 what spirit do you say homosexuals are given over to so that they come against the essence of the 2nd commandment.
is your response..........................we dont do the testing required by scripture the magisterium does it for us.
are you saying, the holy spirit given of christ to show us all truth does not speak to you directly, but instead speaks to the magisterium who then speaks to you.
where in scripture does it even suggest that this is our relationship to the holy spirit.
2F...here's the main difference between Evangelicals and the Catholic Church.
Evangelicals believe the price of salvation is completely paid and we repent out of appriciation for His sacrifice.
Throughout history the Catholic Church policies have been a Jesus + something salvation. For example, salvation could be bought with money for someone in pergetory. This is Jesus + something theology.
The Bible says it is by grace we are saved through faith and that not of yourself it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. You cannot buy a gift someone is giving to you. The concept that salvation can be bought is offensive to Evangelicals.
"To think that God would not communicate to us further truths about the mysteries of salvation in all that time"
You do realize that is charismatic and pentecostal theology, right? Still, I have found no question that the Bible does not clearly and completely answer when it comes to salvation and living the Christian life.
"With those factors taken into consideration, would God let Mary be defeated by death? Certainly, Jesus overcame death with His resurrection. Mary, with her special status, chosen by God to give us His greatest gift, would not be allowed by God to be defeated by death, either. Hence, the Assumption of Mary."
Why wouldn't God want Mary to die a human death? No disrespect, really. I seek honest and sincere dialogue. Jesus' death on the cross was a victory over the human death. Christianity at His death was no longer the fear of death, but the victory in it. Mary, being the fulfilling servant she was knew that a human death meant victory and the through her Son she now gained that victory. What better way to fulfill her service. Jesus loved and honored His mother, yes, but the truth was only to found in Him. And it was Mary that understood and never once sought special treatment, but rather sought to be a willing partaker in God's plan even in her submitting to proper the blueprint of her Son's new covenant with His Chruch.
The arguement here seems to be that the Catholic Church is, somehow, unbiblical. That just isn't true. It is extra-Biblical in that it goes beyond Scripture to further understanding of Christianity.
The Bible is a static document whose events ended 2000 years ago. To think that God would not communicate to us further truths about the mysteries of salvation in all that time, knowing our quest for knowledge of Him, doesn't make sense. Christianity is an ongoing concern and the Holy Spirit is not idle. The difference here is how we each believe the Holy Spirit operates. Soem believe it is a one on one thing alone that brings us closer to Christ adn mreo in line with His teachings. Catholics believe that, but they also believe the Holy Spirit works through the Holy Catholic Church. For Catholics, denying the Church denies the Spirit. That's the pill non-Catholics can't seem to swallow and it is the basis of these disagreements.
So what we have are two paths to Christ that are remarkably the same, but for that variation. I don't mind if you don't agree with what I do regarding Catholic Dogma and Tradition. I do mind when it is suggested that my belief is actually a path to Hell because I don't believe exactly as you do.
The problem Bible literalists have with the Catholic Church and it's teachings is that they look for exact, perfect quotes to support everything the Church has done over 20 centuries. These often exist, but do not, alone, explain someof Catholic Tradition. The Church, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit has logically inferred things by seeing what Scripture means. Much like, if 2 plus 2 is four, then logically 2 times 2 is four. It may be written as "plus", but we can infer the "times." "Times" can't be found in the book, but it is nonetheless true and valid.
Doing the religious math in reference eto the Assumption, for example, we start with a couple facts. Mary was born without sin, she was chosen by God to bear the Savior and was the mother of Christ. As such, she is pretty special in Scripture and the life of Christ.
With those factors taken into consideration, would God let Mary be defeated by death? Certainly, Jesus overcame death with His resurrection. Mary, with her special status, chosen by God to give us His greatest gift, would not be allowed by God to be defeated by death, either. Hence, the Assumption of Mary.
The Assumption may not be Biblical, per se, but it is a logical extension of what we know about God, sin, the Savior and death. To assume that God who chose her and Jesus who revered her as His mother would let her die a human death flies in the face of her special place in the origins of Christianity. It is not a great leap to the Assumption of Mary, even if we can't read about it it the Bible. We don't read about Joseph's death in the Bible, but surely, we can assume he died.
Again, it's a matter of Faith. Catholics believe that the Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit in these matters as the Church of Christ. Others need to see these things, verbatim, in print for them to be matters of Faith. That's the prime difference. And it begs the question, "Where in the Bible does it say something has to be in the Bible to be true?" It doesn't, does it?
Besides, the Bible, much like Catholic Tradition, is the Spirit inspired work of man. The Council of Nicea determined which Sacred Texts were, indeed, sacred, which were consistent and would become the foundation of Christian belief. The same argument that belittles "man made" Catholic dogma can be easily applied to the Bible. But if we believe the Spirit inspires us and acts through us, we can ahve faith in the Bible and in Church Traditions.
(But those whom (the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God) (4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions.)
Note: Do some research and you will find that many within the first Vatican council objected to this dogma.
(Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth, (7) and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them.)
Note: The claim that the Holy Spirit protects your church from error is not so apparent when we compare them with scripture . . . again, many of their teachings contradicts the scriptures.
(Having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.)
Note: Read Jeremiah 7:18 and the entire chapter of Jeremiah 44 and see what the Lord thinks about this title: Queen of Heaven.
(Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.)
Note: So, if someone denies this dogma, they have fallen away completely . . . sounds like a fear tactic to keep and prevent those from leaving or objecting to this dogma. Now; those who objected to the teaching of the immaculate conception at the first Vatican council . . . did they fall away from the divine?
Tallguy, (Online, if Enoch can be assumed Gen 5:24 and if Elijah can be assumed 2 Kings 2:11 then why can't the mother of Jesus?)
Dont forget Moses . . . Jude 1:9; surely God can and has raised/translated those whom he chooses to. We can confidently say that God translated Enoch, Elijah, and resurrected Moses because scripture says so. The question is not only about her supposed assumption but also the teaching of the immaculate conception and her mediatory role: that is according to your tradition. Is it wrong to question issues such as these . . . does not scripture teach us to make sure that no one deceives us (Matthew 24:4) by comparing spiritual things (1Corinthians 2:13)?
Quotes from the link that you gave:
(She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope.)
Note: Scripture does not teach the immaculate conception; Mary herself says, (And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour) Luke 1:47 and Romans 3:23 says, (For all have sinned). Why does someone who is sinless need a savior? Also, Hebrews 2:14 states the Jesus partook of the (same) flesh that we posses, not Marys supposed sinless nature.
Online, if Enoch can be assumed Gen 5:24 and if Elijah can be assumed 2 Kings 2:11 then why can't the mother of Jesus?
I wasn't sure about this one myself and asked a lot of questions.
Don't think for a minute that the Holy Catholic Church flippantly comes up with this stuff, you need to understand that they don't just throw darts at a dartboard to define dogma. Read it for yourself, then decide if you want to believe it or if you don't. There are some very good arguements, ideas, and reasoning in the following:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
Peace in Christ...
Wilderness read your Catechism! Pick up a copy at Barnes & Noble. Read it and then make your flippant little comments if you have any after that.
Here's a little sample for you to try pick apart. Tell me what would contradict the Bible or a Christian lifestyle from the following:
Part 3 LIFE IN CHRIST
1691 "Christian, recognize your dignity and, now that you share in God's own nature, do not return to your former base condition by sinning. Remember who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God."1
1692 The Symbol of the faith confesses the greatness of God's gifts to man in his work of creation, and even more in redemption and sanctification. What faith confesses, the sacraments communicate: by the sacraments of rebirth, Christians have become "children of God,"2 "partakers of the divine nature."3 Coming to see in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead henceforth a life "worthy of the gospel of Christ."4 They are made capable of doing so by the grace of Christ and the gifts of his Spirit, which they receive through the sacraments and through prayer.
1693 Christ Jesus always did what was pleasing to the Father,5 and always lived in perfect communion with him. Likewise Christ's disciples are invited to live in the sight of the Father "who sees in secret,"6 in order to become "perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."7
1694 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are "dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord.8 Following Christ and united with him,9 Christians can strive to be "imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love"10 by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the "mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus,"11 and by following his example.12
1695 "Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God,"13 "sanctified . . . [and] called to be saints,"14 Christians have become the temple of the Holy Spirit.15 This "Spirit of the Son" teaches them to pray to the Father16 and, having become their life, prompts them to act so as to bear "the fruit of the Spirit"17 by charity in action. Healing the wounds of sin, the Holy Spirit renews us interiorly through a spiritual transformation.18 He enlightens and strengthens us to live as "children of light" through "all that is good and right and true."19
1696 The way of Christ "leads to life"; a contrary way "leads to destruction." The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: "There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference."
Wilderness, you have such an uneducated one track mind. You keep trying to tell me that my Holy Church is unbiblical and I'm tired of it! What gives you the right! Quit hiding behind your keyboard attacking Catholics! You want to be a hero for Christ, then head over to the Middle East and preach His message to a Muslim. Oh, maybe you don't have the courage for that?
So you really think you have it all figured out? You think you know so much more then 2000 years of scholarly people who have intrepreted the bible for us? You think you know how to interpret the bible and they didn't? Can you speak Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek? Do you understand the culture and methods of writing from the era? Do you think everyone leading and guiding the Catholic Church is stupid? Blind? Out of touch? Where did you get your theology degree?
If the Holy Catholic Church is so wrong, then please explain the amazing good that it has presented through history! Dig a little deeper. What other church has produced so many saints, and not just saint as you call yourself, but Saints - people who have given everything for Christ, followed Jesus as he asks, selling all that they have to follow Him. You talk about simplicity, try to live in a monastery or a convent for a few days and you'll see simplicity. You can do that you know, just call ahead. You will very soon see simplistic lives dedicated to the worship and love of Christ. Maybe watching these people would give you a lesson in humility. Now leave us alone!
Fleming said: "The Church has evolved..."
An evolution far from the simplicity that is in Christ, casting a hefty non-biblical shadow.
Here is my previous post:
The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim my friend . . . where is your evidence? Surely you cannot find it in the scriptures; the New Testament says nothing of the many extra biblical dogmas which you cling to. Tell me, where do we read about the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, the office of a pope and tradition being equal to scripture in the New Testament?
As anyone can see, there is nothing in this post that warrants a flagging. Obviously, someone felt it necessary to erase it rather than respond specifically to its content.
Fleming,
No one is discrediting your spirituality or personal relationship with Christ. The discussion here is this: is the RCC the same church that is mentioned in the New Testament? Where in the New Testament can I find the above mentioned teachings?
ff, there may be a basis for their traditions it's just that the basis is not necessarily the Word of God!
ff, don't you find it odd that God's Word teaches, Jesus the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow!
ff, the hiearchy of God's Church Universal: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit!
Has the Catholic Church made mistakes through history? Of course, as any institution that old has. Our own ancesters in Europe and the US supported slavery as the will of God for centuries. Some supported segregation as God's will for us as well. Good meaning people can be wrong, but the scope of the Church's work over that time can't be characterized by it's mistakes, ignoring it's success in bringing people to Christ.
The Church has a heirarchy. Yes. It ahs since the days of the Apostles adn it has evolved over the centuries and does define spiritual matters of faith and morals for Catholics, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. The evolution of Christianity didn't stop when the Bible was finished, just as man's progress has not frozen in time since the Resurrection. It is God's plan that we move forward adn that doesn't mean forgetting Scripture, but interpreting it anew to meet new days and new challenges that were never foreseen in the first century.
I have all the "proof" - as though one can prove Faith - I need in the Church of Christ. Worship and one's relationship with God is part human and part divine because we are humans interacting with God. The Catholic Church has studied Scripture for 2000 years and there is a basis for all it's Traditions.
The Church has evolved over 2 millenium from paganism, through persecution, the Dark Ages, through all the periods of man's existence since Christ. The Bible is the basis for belief, but human experience cannot help but be a part of the expression of our faith as well. Nothing in Catholic teaching contradicts the Bible, but our worship contains so much more because of our rich, long history.
I'm saying that Catholics don't have a problem with their Faith or with evangelicals. I don't understand why some seek to discredit the oldest Christian church on earth, if their own Faith sustains them. What gives with that? Are you more saved if you can argue another is not? Those arguments go nowhere because Faith is a personal belief that leads one to God, regardless of what banner one makes the journey under.
"To suppose that any institution that bears the traditions and trappings of 20 centuries should turn onto some basement Bible study group to truly follow Christ is absurd. Religious history is human history ans as such will contain many aspects inspired by our humanity as well as by the Spirit. "
i never said it did.
but antiquity is not necessarily a test for truth. the church supported a belief in indulgences for 1200 years, and condoned ethnic slavery for 1500, and now are attempting to further the belief that homosexuality is a sin for another century.
but the church is unable to show how the words of the verses of scripture say that homosexuality is a sin. it is unable to support their understanding by providing any witness of the "fruit" specificied by christ in the gospels, or are able to provide any objective reasoning based on( romans1:20) what "god created".
i mentioned the magisterium, because it is thru the magisterium that this is being done in their church designated responsiblity to make a set of laws to lead catholic believers in living their faith. this has been a long standing tradition that the magisterium will make unchallengable laws to lead believers,
Your blessings and prayers are appreciated, but plese understand that we Catholics are not in trouble with salvation or our relationship with Christ. 2000 years of Tradition based on the Word of God tells me I'm in fine stead with Christ through my Church. You should feel the same about yours without dragging other denominations into your argument. Your faith should stand on it's own, not be dependent on the imagined failings of another faith as it seems to be in these posts.
I'm sorry, but you folks whose prime characteristic regarding the RCC and it's teachings and practices seems to be misinformed ignorance.
To suppose that any institution that bears the traditions and trappings of 20 centuries should turn onto some basement Bible study group to truly follow Christ is absurd. Religious history is human history ans as such will contain many aspects inspired by our humanity as well as by the Spirit. That is not wrong or sinful or anti-Christian. It is a human supplement to worship that enhances our relationship with Christ through the Church. It is a blessing that we are able to employ our humanity for God's glory, not as a replacement for the Spirit, but as an expression of our love of God. To call it anything else is to not uinderstand it's purpose.
Thank you for the edification, aaron, and AMEN to that!
For your edification:
Bishop J. C. Ryle, Excerpt from "The True Church." circa 1877 -
"It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magistrates, or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man. It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it; it has often been driven into the wilderness or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends. Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it, the Church cannot die... This is the only Church which possesses true unity. Its members are entirely agreed on all the weightier matters of religion, for they are all taught by one Spirit. About God, and Christ, and the Spirit, and sin, and their own hearts, and faith, and repentance, and necessity of holiness, and the value of the Bible, and the importance of prayer, and the resurrection, and judgment to come. About all these points they are of one mind. Take three or four of them, strangers to one another, from the remotest corners of the earth; examine them separately on these points; you will find them all of one judgment."
The Church of God has been in existence since the apostles. It has always been made up of true believers in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The commencement of the Catholic church in 313 at the Edict of Milan seems to me to be exactly what Paul, Peter and James so passionately warned the Church about in the epistles. It is my belief that Jesus has saved many Catholics in spite of the RCC, but that the institution and its foundations are of the devil.
In my church family, we worship God in spirit and truth, we love and serve one another, and we take seriously and act on the great commission; any Christian who walked into our Church would agree that it is a New Testament Church of Jesus Christ. God has richly blessed us with great expository preaching of His Word, regular ministerial and theological training, and the sober and purposeful observation of the TWO sacraments. I praise His holy name for these things in prayer and worship.
God bless you all this fine Monday afternoon!
tallguy, I think you will find with my posts that they are in response to a post stating either the loftiness of the catholic church or that state a view that I believe that contradicts, violates, or supersedes God's Word. Also, catholics have posted negative posts with regards to issues about Southern Baptists and others which I have no problem with as long as it's done in a civil manner and accurate which is the same way we should respond to articles about catholicism. Plus, we also need to post positive posts as well when other denominations are doing the right thing with regard to various issues.
Fleming said: "Why is it that other denominations feel obligated to insist that the Church of Christ which claims a lineage directly back to the Apostles and Jesus, is somehow not in adherence with God's Word?"
If Catholicism had a direct lineage as it claims, without deviation from truth or unbroken divine guidance, then it would surely have a biblical resemblance, which is does not have.
Fleming said: "Clearly, an institution of Faith doesn't survive 2000 years of history without the guiding hand of God."
Such reasoning is faulty. Institutions of Faith must be examined by the word of God, not length of existence. Even Islam has some longevity. Is it being blessed and guided by the hand of God?
Tallguy,
I see that you did not want to admit that you have used your words and comments to discredit the faith of others. Lets be honest here; we all have posted comments that have directly or indirectly affirmed our own faith while discrediting the claims of others . . . right?
(The Holy Catholic Church really is God's pilgrim church on earth, and that is a fact which cannot be denied.)
You have yet to prove that my friend. I do deny that assumption based upon the Word of God . . . many of the RCCs dogmas are nowhere to be found in Scripture. Dont you see that?
Tallguy wrote: "Online, the fact is, the Holy Catholic Church really is God's pilgrim church on earth, and that is a fact which cannot be denied."
But it is denied, Tallguy. The fact is that the Catholic church looks nothing like the New Testament church has proscribed in the Bible. Haven't you ever doubted the teachings of the Catholic church in direct comparason to the Bible? I am being honest and sincere, no malintent intended, really.
"Please don't judge all Catholics by the way that I lived and many live."
I don't. My wife works at a Catholic hospital!
One of her best memories to date was when a 35 ish year old man had said a cuss word to a male nurse he was not happy with. The nun (they only had one) what was about 85 years old came over and gave that patient what for! All the patient kept saying was "yes, ma'am! yes, Sister! I'm so sorry, Sister!" I think her response was more from being 85 than being a Sister. In "her day" you just didn't talk to a nurse that way!!!
My foundational point is that Christianity isn't about what church, denomination or the like. Christianity is about a relationship with Christ on His terms.
Online, the fact is, the Holy Catholic Church really is God's pilgrim church on earth, and that is a fact which cannot be denied.
Online maybe I need to be corrected? Please explain the Holy Sacraments of your church so that I gain a better understanding of them.
<><...
Tallguy,
Lets be honest here; every time an article mentions the word Catholic, Pope, Vatican, etc: you and others continue to proclaim that your church is the one true church. Comments like these begin many of these disagreements . . . right?
(I've noticed that if the headline contains the word Baptist, Evangelical, or Protestant, have you ever seen us Catholics getting in there and trying to destroy your church with our words and comments?)
YES!
You posted the following on: (United Methodists Grant Deacons Sacramental Authority)
It doesn't really matter anyway, because we all know that these protestant churches only have two real sacraments:
1 Tithing
2 Summer Camp
(We have some differences, but if we build bridges and work together as one voice, as one Christian community)
Working together to solve many of the social ills within our communities is fine; however, our theological/doctrinal views are the root cause of our differences . . . here; we cannot have one voice.
Paul Daniel, it's a shame that many people are Catholic in name only and your comment about it being a Shriners club applies to some. Sadly I lived like that myself for the first 35 years of my life. I gave God just one hour each week (Sunday Mass) and then lived the rest of the week as I pleased. I was a real sinner, I was no example of a Christian.
Please don't judge all Catholics by the way that I lived and many live. I'm not very proud of my past.
Yet all faiths have people in their pews who are holy on Sunday and then anything but on Monday. The biggest turn off to Christianity to the world are often Christians who live hypocritical lives.
Yet, I noticed you pointed out the sinners and hypocrits. Why didn't you mention the thousands of righteous people, the tens of thousands of nuns, monks, brothers, and priests who have given their entire lives in dedication to Christ. Who have vowed poverty and obedience, are up at 4:30 every morning to begin their day in prayer for the likes of us. Who spend their entire day serving the Lord. You forgot to mention them.
father
we all are brothers in faith, but it amazes me that the catholic church, given its history, would hold itself up as a paragon to all other denominations.
on the offical catholic question and answer web site, the official response is that it is the only true believing church.
and that even today the catholic church would still insist that jesus's message to his disciples about his chuirch, was that it would be founded on human physicality and not on a message of spiritual faith from heaven.
matt16: 13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
in addition, how can it be acceptable under the new coenant for a body of the church, the magisterium, to create a new set of reedited laws for believers to be led by in their faith, when paul says that believers are to be led by and serve of the spirit.
is it your understanding that the new covenant is a continuation of relationship to the law as in deut 28?
in doing so it stresses doctrine over spirit.
in my times on the catholic forum, all appearances are, that among catholic believers it is the magisterium that trumps even scripture................. the explanation being the church's teachings.
it seemingly has never divorced itself from the constrictions of theocratic rule, but appears to merely have transformed itself from a ruler of governing bodies to one of worldwide cultures.
Matthew 23:12
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
surely this applies to churches as well?
why hold up antiquity as a validator of the truth? hinduism is 3000 years old. judism is 4000. do they embrace all truth?
believer, it's funny you say you're feeling put down by myself and my fellow Catholics on this site. Sorry you feel that way, and I see it from quite an opposite viewpoint. No matter what the topic on this website, if it has the word Catholic, Pope, Vatican, you and a few others are all over it, with slander and putdowns.
Let's look at this another way. I've noticed that if the headline contains the word Baptist, Evengelical, or Protestant, have you ever seen we Catholics getting in there and trying to destroy your church with our words and comments? No.
Yes I get upset with your constant hammering on my faith, leave us alone. Respect your mom, she's Catholic! My overall messagae is that we have about 80% in common, we have some differences, but if we build bridges and work together as one voice, as one Christian community, we will be far more effective as a voice in the world.
Pax Christi....
Hey there 2F...
One of the big problems with the Catholic church is the same problem with the Baptists, Presbys and many others. Having been raised in a town which was very much a Catholic town (I'd say almost 70% until the Bible college moved in) were Catholic on Sunday only. I knew a Catholic family quite well and 'born again' was a joke. None Catholics were looked down on. It played out more like a Shriners group than a church. Unfortunately, it was not just this one church.
So, it has been my experience that Catholics in many parts of the USA look down on non-Catholics and have for generations.
Now, with that said, I heard the Pope speak at the Vatican July 4, 1996 when we were coming back from the mission field. He addressed any Americans in the crowd in English and spoke of our heritage and our 200 years of freedom for all people whether Catholic or not and spoke of our tolerance for various Christian views. In short, we may disagree on theology but there is one Jesus and he wasn't going to tell Jesus who He could and couldn't love.
ff, just the opposite occurs on many of these sites with several catholic posters who come across with a very arrogant and haughty attitude claiming that the catholic church is a step above the rest of us and even though we may be Christians were in a way second class Christians becauses we are either no longer a part of the catholic church or a part of the catholic church, which they claim is the one true church, so much of what you read is a reaction to that haughty attitude presented by some catholic posters. I personally believe that God's Word teaches there is only one true Church and every truly born-again believer is indeed a member of God's Church Universal and that Church contains people from many if not all denominations to include catholic, baptists, pentecostals and so on.
Father Fleming
Are you really a Priest or is it just a screen name?
If you are a Priest, how many years have you served?
A question. Why is it that other denominations feel obligated to insist that the Church of Christ which claims a lineage directly back to the Apostles and Jesus, is somehow not in adherence with God's Word? Clearly, an institution of Faith doesn't survive 2000 years of history without the guiding hand of God. Is there something in your faith that needs affirming by charactorizing other faiths as less "christian" than yours? As the first and oldest Church in Christiandom, I could see why the Catholic Church would be a target for such, but I can't see the reason for attacking other Christians that seems prevalent amongst evangelical groups.. Shouldn't one be concerned with one's own faith first?
feetxxxl
You have asked....
"what is it about "the fulfillment of the law is love " do you not understand?"
Your question will be answered once you have explained your interpretation of Mathew 5:17 versus what you have read in Hebrews.
Regardless of interpretation about the old and new covenants, clearly, the Catholic Church embraces the new covenant that is Christ. It is reaffirmed every day in the Mass.
Obviously, you're not a Catholic or you would know that there is nothing the Church does to lead anyone away from their faith in Christ. Quite the opposite. The Church exists to bring people to God and preserve and spread the Word of God.
father
i did not know that the vatican was a seperate state. this would explain its relationship with the italian congress, and the need to have a set of laws for governing.
however that does no explain why the magisterium would create a set of laws to lead believers under the new covenant in living out their faith.
what is it about "the fulfillment of the law is love " do you not understand?
what is it about "the fulfillment of the law is love " do you not understand?
feetxxxl
These are the words of Christ.
Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.
The Old Covenant spoken of in Hebrews was made with the sacrifice of animals. The New Covenant is made with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
father
The nwe covenant is the fufilment of the old, but not a replacement. We are bound to honor both or we should simply throw out the Old Testament.
please annotate your understanding of scripture.
hebrews 8 does not support your understanding.
if something is to become obsolete and soon pass away, then there is no fulfillment of it.
7For if there had been nothing WRONG with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one OBSOLETE; and what is obsolete and aging will SOON DISAPPEAR.
halver
i agree.
James 1:16-18 (New International Version)
16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
halver
i agree.
James 1:16-18 (New International Version)
16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
Article: "The Papal office said there were too many laws in the Italian civil and criminal codes and that many of them conflicted with the Church's principles. "
Maybe someday, the papal office will proclaim that there are too many traditions and commandments of men within Catholicism that conflict with the word of God.
Father Fleming
You have said....
"This is not for religious as much as secular purposes because Vatican City has diplomatic relations with scores of nations across the world. It's advantagous for the Church to have formal diplomatic status because it's secular role enhances the ability to spread the Word and work for peace, interfaith dialogue and against war, famine, poverty and the like."
This is an interesting line that the church seems to play.
Clearly, the church has to choose to distance itself to ensure that there is no confusion amongst the believers.
If not, then the laws of Statehood can be no different from the laws of the church.
Father Fleming
Thank you for your comments.
Just curious...are you truly a Priest in the Catholic Church, or is that just your screen name?
Also, as I have been reading more of these blogs I have come to realize that there may be a difference in how people are interpreting the word love in the second commandment to justify relationships that are sinful.
We are to love God and we are to love our neighbor. And this love comes from God through the Holy Spirit. It is not a love that comes from man.
This love from God cannot love sin at the same time.
mtgburrell, all churches try to hold onto their members, money and influence. All. It's what lets them continue their work for God. If you deny that, you're denying reality and what lets churches survive. So, don't lay that specifically on the Roman Catholic Church. They are far, far from alone in that regard.
"In the very beginning it was only by word of mouth and experience with God that people understood what it meant to truly love God. And this was by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Today we now have the history and commandments in written form"
The Catholic Church codified the scattered Sacred Texts in the 4th century to ensure that we would have a consistent understanding of Christ's teachings amongst all Christians. Different sects were honoring different texts and drawing conflicting and heretical meaning from them. To ensure the integrity of the Word, the Church finally decided to codify the texts and that became the Bible.
The Second Great Commandment which is as important as the First, or they would not be paired the way Christ paired them is:
Love thy neighbor as thyself for the Love of God.
Let's not forget that one. Too many do.
What needs to be remembered here is that Vatican City is a sovereign political state and as such has laws. It's laws reflect it's moral code and principles just as US law defines what we are as a people. The Church needs to know that laws it supports align with the teachings of Christ and the Church, just as our laws must align with the Constitution. This is not for religious as much as secular purposes because Vatican City has diplomatic relations with scores of nations across the world. It's advantagous for the Church to have formal diplomatic status because it's secular role enhances the ability to spread the Word and work for peace, interfaith dialogue and against war, famine, poverty and the like.
There is no weaning to be done with the Church's teachings. The nwe covenant is the fufilment of the old, but not a replacement. We are bound to honor both or we should simply throw out the Old Testament.
The Church, during the Eucharist, recognizes Christ as "the new and everlasting covenant, the mystery of faith.' So it's way ahead of where you surmise it to be. It is the new covenant on which the Church has been based since the days of the Apostles.
feetxxxl
You have asked....
"are you saying that if there wasnt a book that told you to love god you, probably would not love him?"
In the very beginning it was only by word of mouth and experience with God that people understood what it meant to truly love God.
And this was by an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Today we now have the history and commandments in written form. But the way to loving God has not changed.
We still need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to truly love according to what is stated in the New Covenant.
This kind of love is not of man, it is only from God.
i mentioned olstein because in essence his ministry stresses living the three commnadments.
joel also believes that homosexuality is not god's best, which i consider wrong.
we ,still, are all believers, seeking the truth, brothers in faith.
commandment ........an authoratative order to do something
law.....................rules of conduct
are you saying that if there wasnt a book that told you to love god you, probably would not love him?
feet, then why did you mention Joel Osteen?
feetxxxl
You have said....
"in addition the ONLY LAW that we are to be concerned under the new covenant is that which supports the essence of the 2nd commandment"
According to Christ, the First and Great Commandment is that we are to Love the Lord our God with all of our Hearts. The second commandment is like it.
Everything surrounds these two commandments. This is what Christ taught. Without the First Commandment it is not possible to be guided by the others.
feet, and that's why a number of people may wind up in hell for eternity thanks to these look good, feel good preachers.
the ones i am aware of, he spoke about attitude and faith.
feet, and that's why a number of people may wind up in hell for eternity thanks to these look good, feel good preachers.
in addition the ONLY LAW that we are to be concerned under the new covenant is that which supports the essence of the 2nd commandment.
halver
the move you are talking about was predestined 2000 years ago. look how historically the church has been gradually been turned to the new covenant by first dispensing with the burning of witches and heretics, the abandonment of the practice of indulgences, and the declaration that finally after 1500 years that ethnic slavery was an intolerable evil.
closer to home, look how long the blue laws( attempts to keep the sabbath holy) were enforced, and how long the existence of antisemitism(believers were appling against the jews what the jews had applied to the non believing tribes around them) in spite of what had been written in romans 10 and 11.
this a gradual turning that has been progressing for 2000 years.
we know that we have never received righteousness for following the law. there is no credit spiritually for following anything, because anything followed, can be followed for a million other reasons, other than love which is the only RIGHT ONE.
1 cor13 anything without love is nothing and gains nothing.
we know the fulfillment of the law is love.
therefore why be led by that for which we gain no credit when we can be led by that which is god........love
1john 4 god is love.
in being led by the spirit of god we do more than follow the law we fulfill it. we do what christ directed us to do.........................we follow him.
of which is greater being led by the one who lives in us or by the law.
did the law come from the spirit or the spirit come from the law? why be led by what comes from the spirit rather than directly by the spirit itself.
the comment has been made that we are abandoning the law. that is not true. as paul says the law is to make us conscious of sin. thus we do not abandon the law, but our conviction as to what is the sin is not by the law but by the spirit., which convicts us according to how we are living according to the second commandment, the commandment under the new covenant, being the summation of all the law.
"i will send you the holy spirit. he will convict you of all truth."
that is why joel osteen and other who preach the same are having such great success. because their focus is about the love of the three commandments. it is being honored by the spirit.
Of course, you don't have to be old and venerable to be a Pharisee. Look at the barely adolescent (compared to the Catholics) church called the PCA.
Why should anyone be surprised that the Roman Catholic Church is trying, as the Pharisees did in Jesus' day, to hang onto the status quo? The church stands to lose so much (money, power, subjects) if it allows any "cracks" in its dogma.
feetxxxl
As much as fulfillment of the Law is love, why should we desire to move away from the Old Covenant principles?
We fulfill them as Christ did.
would david have abandoned the ten commandments, if he had loved his neighbor as himself.
he would have done more than merely follow the law. he would have fulfilled it. fulfillment of the law is love.
jesus said follow me.
feetxxxl
You have said....
"or maybe this is another move of christ, slowly weaning the catholic church off the old covenant, so that eventually it will have both feet planted in the new."
This is not what Christ taught. There is no such teaching that suggests that any Christian church is to move away from any of the commandments under the Old Covenant.
Christ himself said that He did not come to replace the Law, but to fulfill it.
Sorry for the previous typo's. Too quick to submit I guess.
feetxxxl
You have said....
"or maybe this is another move of christ, slowly weaning the catholic church off the old covenant, so that eventually it will have both feet planted in the new."
This is not was Christ taught. There is no such teaching that suggests that any Christian church is to move away from any of the commandments under the Old Covenant.
Christ himself said that He did come to replace the Law, but to fulfill it.
father fleming
As a mostly Catholic country Italy tended to support pro-Christian legislation that was in keeping with Church teachings.
why would a body of believers who are led by and serve the spirit allow themselves to be identified with a certain body of laws.
my understanding is that under the new covenant we are directed to live by the three commandments of love.
1john 4 god is love
god = spirit god = love spirit = love(that is god)
surely if king david hasd loved his neighbor as himself he would not have stepped in what he did.
As a mostly Catholic country Italy tended to support pro-Christian legislation that was in keeping with Church teachings. In the modern world this is apparently no longer the case. As such the Church must selectively support new legislation for Vatican City that complies with the Church's stand on contemporary issues of importance to Christians, like abortion, divorce and homosexuality.
As the moral leader of over a billion Christians, the Roman Catholic Church cannot afford to inadvertently accept laws that don't reflect Christ's teachings. So the Church will review them and adopt only those that agree with Christian principles. I doubt the issue is any more complicated than that, though your conspiracy theorists are always ready to make a mountain out of a molehill.
perhaps this means that the catholic church no longer has the influence on italian politics, in the way that it once had.
or maybe this is another move of christ, slowly weaning the catholic church off the old covenant, so that eventually it will have both feet planted in the new.
if this is true, then perhaps, the next move might be about the magisterium, which, besides providing an international standard for the entire church, it credits itself with identifying and legislating a new system of laws for the new covenant and encourages believers to be led by them in their walk of faith.
this understanding, however, comes against the new covenant. paul says in romans we are instead. to be led by and serve of the spirit............................. our now living under grace.
without a doubt, when this understanding is fully embraced , there will be a number of attitudes reversed about a number of issues, including the one on homosexuality.
Perhaps at one time Italian laws more closely reflected biblical principles.
Otherwise I can't imagine why a church Body would desire to follow after secular law. Politics maybe?
Any church needs to have its own politics in order before it can work on the rest of the world.