ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY

[republicanchick]

OSAS is a doctrine which proposes that the only one's who are saved are those who maintain their faith. If you give up God the last minute of your life, then you were never saved.

It's predestination theology, there is no going back and forth on one's eternal status. At the same time, God cannot justify those without faith.

Luther did a mighty job at liberating the faithful and condemning atheists, in other words. It's in fact Calvin who sort of bounces back and brings up a strict ideology of sainthood, which as far as I can tell all of Christianity fails at. That's why you see Presbyterian churches water it down :up:

sorry, but this really does not make sense

which is not surprising. Those outside Christ's Church do not make sense a lot of the time



++

 

[republicanchick]

I agree that the Bible is not the churches only authority, but to say that the Catholic church is the other authority is going a bit far. I have no problem with Catholicism. However there are many other ways of following Jesus.

so you think its logical that Jesus founded a church, set it up a certain way, made it just the way he wanted (even accounting for human frailty of the clergy...) and then said it was OK not to be in said Church, that there are other ways to follow him??

No, this is not true. I respect those o/side the Church who attempt to follow Jesus. Maybe it's amazing they do as well as they do... uh... wait... SEEM to do... But they are still outside Christ's Church and that is NEVER... Never a good thing, never a perfect thing...

Secondly, I feel that traditions are good to follow if they are still useful and good and relevant. I do not think that traditions are useful and good and relevant because they are good to follow. That does not make sense.

actually, I don't totally get this. But traditions are either good or not good. And none that the Church honors are bad. Something is either true and good or it is not.. it doesn't matter what century it is practiced in. It is either good or it is not..

Frankly, the CatholicChurch has left aside a lot of really good practices (the Latin Mass... ) Plus, the Church seems to have shortened the Mass... NOT good..




++

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

sorry, but this really does not make sense

which is not surprising. Those outside Christ's Church do not make sense a lot of the time

What doesn't make sense is following an alleged primacy that repeatedly contradicts it's own claim :up:

I sort of liked the idea of Peter's seat and infallibility but then I realized that right about when the Church became the Church, and whatever the status of this seat may have been, those who sit in it are nothing like Peter or the Apostles_

 

[HisServant]

so you think its logical that Jesus founded a church, set it up a certain way, made it just the way he wanted (even accounting for human frailty of the clergy...) and then said it was OK not to be in said Church, that there are other ways to follow him??

No, this is not true. I respect those o/side the Church who attempt to follow Jesus. Maybe it's amazing they do as well as they do... uh... wait... SEEM to do... But they are still outside Christ's Church and that is NEVER... Never a good thing, never a perfect thing...



actually, I don't totally get this. But traditions are either good or not good. And none that the Church honors are bad. Something is either true and good or it is not.. it doesn't matter what century it is practiced in. It is either good or it is not..

Frankly, the CatholicChurch has left aside a lot of really good practices (the Latin Mass... ) Plus, the Church seems to have shortened the Mass... NOT good..




++

1.) Jesus nor the disciples spoke in Latin... is Latin somehow inherently better than the Hebrew and Aramaic that they spoke?

2.) Jesus did not set up a church in the way that you say... one thing that has always concerned me is that in the Old Testament you have Moses and the Prophets writing down to the most minute detail what God inspired them to write in regards to the construction of the temple, how the sacrifices were to be made and when and how the people were to act and what they were to do.

In the New Testament, according to Catholics, God just have dropped the ball because he forgot to give the same level of detail... and in such an absence of detail the RCC has taken it upon itself to dream up all sorts of dogma and practices that go beyond what Jesus and the Apostles taught and exhorted people with. In the Old Testament, people were specifically told to NOT do such a thing and wait on the Lord. David was told he was not to build the temple, for example.

The only conclusion one can come to after analyzing everything is that the Roman Catholic God is not the same God that Jesus called his father or the same God the Old Testament shows.

 

[republicanchick]

What doesn't make sense is following an alleged primacy that repeatedly contradicts it's own claim :up:

I sort of liked the idea of Peter's seat and infallibility but then I realized that right about when the Church became the Church, and whatever the status of this seat may have been, those who sit in it are nothing like Peter or the Apostles_

well, it's like the presidency

what president is really like George Washington?

(aside from Reagan...)

but the presidency (the office) lives on...




++

 

[republicanchick]

1.) Jesus nor the disciples spoke in Latin... is Latin somehow inherently better than the Hebrew and Aramaic that they spoke?
.

Jesus walked around in sandals, so I guess all who claim to follow Him should do the same?



++

 

[republicanchick]

1.) In the New Testament, according to Catholics, God just have dropped the ball because he forgot to give the same level of detail... and in such an absence of detail the RCC has taken it upon itself to dream up all sorts of dogma and practices that go beyond what Jesus and the Apostles taught and exhorted people with. ws.

you show your ignorance about the RCC

the Church doesn't dream up dogmas. And as is typical of anti-Catholic posters, you never give ONE example of a dreamt up dogma, so called

(sigh)

I wish people would study something b4 they pass themselves off as knowledgable



+++

 

[CabinetMaker]

Since your mom doesn't speak officially for the Catholic Church, you'll need to cite the paragraph in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that "God convicts us in our conscience first."

I'm sorry! but you do not posses the authority to question my mother.

Rather, all that is needed. Whether or not you allow yourself to be convinced by the more-than-sufficient answers is entirely up to you. Again, the problem is you, not the evidence.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So you final answer us that we don't need to know why your church teaches what it does. Pretty sorry excuse for an answer.

 

[Cruciform]

I'm sorry! but you do not posses the authority to question my mother.

Don't need any, since your mother is manifestly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---and neither is your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

So you final answer us that we don't need to know why your church teaches what it does.

Wrong yet again. Rather, we already know full well why Christ's one historic Church teaches what she does. Thus, the problem is not with the Church's teachings, but with you, who willfully refuses to conform yourself to the truth.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What doesn't make sense is following an alleged primacy that repeatedly contradicts it's own claim.

For example...?

I sort of liked the idea of Peter's seat and infallibility but then I realized that right about when the Church became the Church, and whatever the status of this seat may have been, those who sit in it are nothing like Peter or the Apostles.

In what ways, specifically, were subsequent bishops supposedly unlike Peter and the other apostles?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Don't need any, since your mother is manifestly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---and neither is your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

So then you agree that I actually do have the authority to question your church. Glad we got that straightened out.

Wrong yet again. Rather, we already know full well why Christ's one historic Church teaches what she does. Thus, the problem is not with the Church's teachings, but with you, who willfully refuses to conform yourself to the truth.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

So the problem is that you lack the authority to speak for your church beyond posting links to Catholic propaganda. Again, I'm glad we got that cleared up. And no, I do not think that you have a clear grasp of why Rome teaches what it does.

 

[Cruciform]

So then you agree that I actually do have the authority to question your Church.

As I've already said, question all you like. You do not, however, possess the doctrinal authority to replace the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church with the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

So the problem is that you lack the authority to speak for your Church beyond posting links to Catholic propaganda.

We both appeal to the teachings of our particular doctrinal traditions. The difference is that, while I can demonstrate that my Tradition is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., you can provide no such proof for your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

And no, I do not think that you have a clear grasp of why Rome teaches what it does.

Who really cares what you think concerning a subject of which you yourself clearly and demonstrably have essentially no grasp whatsoever? Don't even bother. :darwinsm:



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

@Cruciform and republicanchick

The popes went from declaring that no one can be saved outside the Church to atheists and Muslims having the capacity to be saved. From crusades to shaking hands with Islamic leaders. From inquisitions to negotiations. Every time there is power, it is used incorrectly, and whenever there is none, it's a show play of good intentions.

Just like the Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat, the one's sitting in Peter's have gone through eras of greed and legal scourge. And just like how the Pharisees looked like fools after Jesus' last breath, so to will the Church's priests on the Last Day.

There is no feudal system, there is no Christian State; the Vatican is a growing irrelevance. There is no more succession, just a church who cannot backtrack without completely destroying it's standing.

 

[Cruciform]

The popes went from declaring that no one can be saved outside the Church to atheists and Muslims having the capacity to be saved.

The Catholic Church has always taught both truths. They are hardly mutually exclusive. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Just like the Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat, the one's sitting in Peter's have gone through eras of greed and legal scourge.

If you're suggesting that Popes have committed personal sins, the Catholic Church has never taught otherwise.

There is no more succession...

Try again.

...just a church who cannot backtrack without completely destroying it's standing.

Where, exactly, do you imagine that the Catholic Church has ever needed to "backtrack" in its formal teachings?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The Catholic Church has always taught both truths. They are hardly mutually exclusive. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

They cannot both be true. If you can'r be saved outside the Church, then coming along later saying others can is a direct contradiction.

Popes do a whole lot of going over each other; it's funny how God cannot contradict Himself in Scripture but seems to do it all the time in the papacy.

Try again.

There was a succession and then the Church went and assumed a position within it- and then the Dark Ages began. If there was an actual succession beyond that, there wouldn't have been a need to study demonology for them to figure out why they were so corrupt, thy'd rather be able to cast them out as Peter did_

 

[Cruciform]

They cannot both be true. If you can'r be saved outside the Church, then coming along later saying others can is a direct contradiction.

Your confusion here stems from a basic lack of understanding concerning what the Church actually teaches regarding these two issues. According to your present (mis)understanding of these doctrines, they appear to contradict one another. However, correctly understood, there is in fact no contradiction whatsoever. Again, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Popes do a whole lot of going over each other; it's funny how God cannot contradict Himself in Scripture but seems to do it all the time in the papacy.

For example...?

There was a succession and then the Church went and assumed a position within it- and then the Dark Ages began.

Now go ahead and post your proof for this bare assertion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

>BUMP< for C&L.