toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?

[Krsto]

do you know anyone here that allows their home to be used every sunday?

If my wife were in better health and felt up to being a host we certainly would. We have known lots of people who do (not just on Sunday), in fact, with all the home groups that churches have in our area there must be thousands of people who do and that's in a community of about a quarter million. Your area probably has them too.

 

[Krsto]

I find that question irrevalent.. my feelings on the issue don't matter.

Religious services are an anathma in scripture.

I would also like to add that anyone that would say yes to your question is most definately not a christian and an outright liar because we serve at the behest of our Lord.

Yeah, religious service, not in the bible. But the church should have qualified leaders (elders) and those qualifications have to do with quality of character, not professional training. Beyond that, God gives gifts of the Holy Spirit to all, and some lend themselves more to being up front a vocal, such as the gifts of teaching or prophecy. I've sat under a number of teachers who had the seminary degrees but were not called of God to teach so weren't very good at it, even though they thought they were.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Likewise with the leaders of Christ's historic Church today---they are bishops, ordained successors to the apostles.

I fail to see how that makes a difference. At all. It's really just a way of saying that they are right and are still right when they are wrong. There's no point of a central church if it can't even live up to it's own charge.

The Catholic Church has a mighty flaw, and it's holding on to tradition even as the Bible grows with us in understanding. This started happening, ironically enough, when Christians started breaking away from the Church.

This is a clear sign that these alleged 'ordained successors' were errant from the start, and not all the apostle's teachings obviously availed them. So who's to say they can even be the 'historic Church'?
Like many other things, antiquity doesn't always equate to authenticity. The historic Church is simply Christian fellowship, and the Bible doesn't really stray too far from that.

 

[Cruciform]

I fail to see how that makes a difference. At all. It's really just a way of saying that they are right and are still right when they are wrong.

• In fact, it means that Jesus Christ was right when he promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (Mt. 16:18; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).
• It means that---because they have been endowed with apostolic authority by means of a succession of ordination from the apostles themselves---the bishops possess the authority to define Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, and that you and I (and other lay believers with an opinion) do not. Sorry, but you just don't get a vote---Christ's historic Church is not a democracy. This is how the Christian Church has always functioned (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6), and it continues to do so down to our own day.

There's no point of a central church if it can't even live up to it's own charge.

Contrary to your preferences, you simply lack the binding doctrinal authority to declare whether the Church is, or is not, "living up to its charge." Again, Christ's historic Church is not now---nor has it ever been---a democracy. :nono:

This is a clear sign that these alleged 'ordained successors' were errant from the start, and not all the apostle's teachings obviously availed them. So who's to say they can even be the 'historic Church'?

Jesus Christ, who promised that the gates of hell would never---never---prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18). If you're right and the Church plunged into formal theological error after the apostles, then only two options are possible:

[1] Jesus Christ was mistaken, or
[2] Jesus Christ lied.​

This is why the early Christian Church formally condemned the ancient heresy known as Ecclesial Deism which, sadly, you are advocating here.

The historic Church is simply Christian fellowship...

This is at the heart of your erroneous position: an entirely inadequate ecclesiology.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[bucksplasher]

You link to "Ecclesial Deism" is an excellent one. Thanks.

tWINs

 

[HisServant]

Yeah, religious service, not in the bible. But the church should have qualified leaders (elders) and those qualifications have to do with quality of character, not professional training. Beyond that, God gives gifts of the Holy Spirit to all, and some lend themselves more to being up front a vocal, such as the gifts of teaching or prophecy. I've sat under a number of teachers who had the seminary degrees but were not called of God to teach so weren't very good at it, even though they thought they were.

The bible does have very clear requirements for eldership. Unfortunately not a single Roman Catholic Priest meets those requirements (except for anglican married priests that were allowed into the church).

An elder must be a husband of but one wife... it's pretty straight forward. As there is a lot of wisdom that one develops when dealing with ones wife and raising a family that is totally absent from the Roman Catholic Church and it shows.

 

[IXOYE]

Because they were apostles. Paul could cast demons away with his mere shadow. They were actually endowed, you see.

They endowment came from Christ directly. They laid hands on others to pass the endowment on. RCC has laid hands on passing that endowment since then. If you go to a priest he can pull out a book that shows the lineage of His endowment back to an apostle. :doh: Your comment doesn't help the anti catholic argument.

I don't see how I am being ignorant by observing a simple fact. You are Catholic and feel you must defend the Church, even if it means bending the truth.

Well, you are being ignorant because of what you don't know. Just as the word means. He wasn't insulting you, but merely making an observation. I don't think had he used UNEDUCATED it would have sounded any different, but some people may react to the word ignorant.

I didn't understand until I did the research. I'm still protestant. But I at least understand their stuff, and a lot of it is more right than we are.

 

[HisServant]

They endowment came from Christ directly. They laid hands on others to pass the endowment on. RCC has laid hands on passing that endowment since then. If you go to a priest he can pull out a book that shows the lineage of His endowment back to an apostle. :doh: Your comment doesn't help the anti catholic argument.

But the truthfulness of that 'book' cannot be assumed to be without error.

 

[IXOYE]

"Ouch." ~ E.T. 2 Tim. 3:8

2 Timothy 3:8 (NKJV)
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;


Kinda hard on yourself aren't you?

There is a cure for yoru corrupt mind, don't despair.


BTW, do you just think any verse that you read is written precisely for you, to defend your bigotry, etc... do you not realize some vss don't apply to you? Narcissistic disaster. :|

 

[Krsto]

The bible does have very clear requirements for eldership. Unfortunately not a single Roman Catholic Priest meets those requirements (except for anglican married priests that were allowed into the church).

An elder must be a husband of but one wife... it's pretty straight forward. As there is a lot of wisdom that one develops when dealing with ones wife and raising a family that is totally absent from the Roman Catholic Church and it shows.

Yes in general family men make better pastors but I think the emphasis was not on the whether to have a wife or not but on how many for those who do marry. Actually, the word is litterally to be a "one woman man" which is why some churches disqualify those who have divorced and remarried since they would be a two-women man, even if only one at a time. Never having married I don't think would disqualify based on that word, but nevertheless for a church to make a policy that their leaders can't marry is folly.

 

[IXOYE]

I find that question irrevalent.. my feelings on the issue don't matter.

In other words, No you don't but don't wanna admit it in public.

Religious services are an anathma in scripture.

:doh:Which is exactly why Paul told Timothy to make sure to have them, and to make sure that what is taught in them is passed on. Brilliant. Also why the early church gathered together and was called the Way. Also why they often met in the synagogues, a definite service experience, in the earliest church History.

You need to learn to research, instead of just shop for information you desire to find. :help::dizzy:

I would also like to add that anyone that would say yes to your question is most definately not a christian and an outright liar because we serve at the behest of our Lord.

This makes no sense and has no connection to the question, nor the comment he made. Any other non sequitur comments you'd like to add?
:vomit:

 

[HisServant]

Yes in general family men make better pastors but I think the emphasis was not on the whether to have a wife or not but on how many for those who do marry. Actually, the word is litterally to be a "one woman man" which is why some churches disqualify those who have divorced and remarried since they would be a two-women man, even if only one at a time. Never having married I don't think would disqualify based on that word, but nevertheless for a church to make a policy that their leaders can't marry is folly.

Polygamy was rampant during the times of the Apostles. Limiting an elder to one wife made sure he had the time to devote to working with the flock.

 

[HisServant]

In other words, No you don't but don't wanna admit it in public.

What.. admit that I have been through christian college and seminary and have preached in different countries around the world?... why would I not want to admit that in public? I'd be happy if it applied to the question at hand.

The fact is that my training has absolutely no bearing on my fitness to preach and teach... and should not be used by anyone to proclaim their fitness to do so.

Their standing as a teacher is at the mercy of the congregation (ekklesia) continually confirming that they have the Holy Spirits temporary gift of teaching.

So to ask me personally if I am qualified would not be something any 'pastor' would be comfortable with proclaiming of themselves.

:doh:Which is exactly why Paul told Timothy to make sure to have them, and to make sure that what is taught in them is passed on. Brilliant. Also why the early church gathered together and was called the Way. Also why they often met in the synagogues, a definite service experience, in the earliest church History.

Sure, they gathered together. But there is no record of some man made liturgy or other customs which we equate to a 'service' these days. The met in homes.. branched out when they grew. But in the early days there was no concept of what we understand to be a 'church'.. it was an ekklesia.. a calling out be the Holy Spirit.

You need to learn to research, instead of just shop for information you desire to find. :help::dizzy:

Ive spent plenty of time on research even wrote my thesis on it (somewhat)... apparently you haven't.

Anyhow... thanks for butting in and answering a question that was not asked of you.

 

[IXOYE]

God is in complete control... man just doesnt appreciate his methods and timing of his control so they forsake him and do things on their own while claiming it is his will.

Old testament hints to the new testament right? It was part of our education so we would understandn what was happening when it happened, RIGHT?

God appointed PRIESTS to take His message to the people. Why? They were given the gift for that.

That was under levi/aaron, etc...

Before that you had. (insert jaws theme here...) Melchizedek's priesthood. If there was a high priest, there were, by definition, lower priests.

All the preceeding CHURCHES we have to learn from had priests, individuals that had gifts, or were given gifts of leadership. In the NT, you'll notice GOD appointed CHRIST.
Christ appointed the Apostles.
The Apostles appointed bishops, if you are so anti catholic you don't like that word :bang:, PEOPLE that were gifted in teaching and leading. They had responsibilities to get to the people the message of God. WOW sounds like the exact format as the OT hinted at!

In Eph 4 you see paul saying exactly this, vss 12-17, the leaders of the church, using their gifts, were to prepare the people for works of service from which they gained spiritual maturity even to the FULL EXTENT of Jesus' on earth. It was through the appointed leaders of the Church, not the people studying on their own.

You have no leg to stand on.

Historically, we know that CLEMENT, probably the same man Paul mentioned as approved of for his teaching, wrote that the OT Priesthood was the precursor to the Church of his day. He wrote his epistle around the time JOHN wrote the GOSPELS. So it was definitely written in the times of the Apostolic era. He was bishop of ROME, writing to the bishop of CORINTH, so you apparently had JOHN, the APOSTLE JESUS LOVED, not having much issue with their format. :deadhorse:

History is a wonderful thing. :dunce:

If Rome is the true church, then it forsook God when it moved to Rome.. and God returned the favor.

Rome doesn't have to be the true church. They have valid things to put on the table, but too many bigots want to hate and bash them, over look the obvious to make excuses for their attacks, hatred, vitriol, and tactics.

Personally, I think, since dissensions and factions are the banes of unity caused by the flesh, that in Luther's Time he probably should have gone to ROME and either been martyred, causing some radical debate and changes in the Church, or gone and the Church would have changed some. The SPLIT, according to PAUL in gal 5:19-21 is a fleshly act. And Luther left the, he was whisked away by His Germanic Princes. He was ready to die.

Something for you to think of. I hope you will.

 

[IXOYE]

So what do you think they did up until it was legal to be a Christian and build buildings after the Edict of Toleration in 312 AD? What HisServant describes is how it was done. If they got too big they split up and created two churches out of one. If they needed to all meet together they would kind of "borrow" a bigger building, like hang out in Solomon's Porch even while the non-Christian Jews were there. Today, if you want to meet on Sunday, there are plenty of Adventist churches who would love a litte rental income on their building which is not used on Sunday morning since they meet on the Sabbath Day.

And yet, you still had ONE MAN that governed the whole area of those smaller churches. it's amazing. And, when they COULD meet in larger venues, to do so would make the job of the one man monitoring an area easier to control and keep in the proper direction.

Amazing....

Also amazing, before they were hiding out and meeting in homes, <IXOYE><, they were meeting with the jews in the synogogues.

 

[IXOYE]

If my wife were in better health and felt up to being a host we certainly would. We have known lots of people who do (not just on Sunday), in fact, with all the home groups that churches have in our area there must be thousands of people who do and that's in a community of about a quarter million. Your area probably has them too.

Catholics have home groups too.

And home groups aren't sanctioned within paul's examples of Church. Not saying they are bad by any means... But they wouldn't replace "church" because they have no one in authority over them to make sure they teach correctly. I've seen some pretty Screwy thoughts come from them. Read Pagan Christianity, that guy is a rewriter of History.

 

[HisServant]

Old testament hints to the new testament right? It was part of our education so we would understandn what was happening when it happened, RIGHT?

God appointed PRIESTS to take His message to the people. Why? They were given the gift for that.

Levitical priests were not appointed to take the message to the people.. they were appointed to SERVE the Lord in the tabernacle.

That was under levi/aaron, etc...

Before that you had. (insert jaws theme here...) Melchizedek's priesthood. If there was a high priest, there were, by definition, lower priests.

Melchisedek was not a HIGH Priest... he was a priest of God most high.

All the preceeding CHURCHES we have to learn from had priests, individuals that had gifts, or were given gifts of leadership. In the NT, you'll notice GOD appointed CHRIST.
Christ appointed the Apostles.

Church, as I have said before are not a biblical concept. Of course the word church does appear in a lot of English translations, but that was due to an order by King James. There is no equivalent in English to the word in used in the original tongue (ekklesia).

The Apostles appointed bishops, if you are so anti catholic you don't like that word :bang:, PEOPLE that were gifted in teaching and leading. They had responsibilities to get to the people the message of God. WOW sounds like the exact format as the OT hinted at!

Once again, the word bishop is of Catholic and Anglican origin and does not appear in the original languages. As I said before, the word church and words that distinguished 'offices' in the church were barred from being changed to their original tongue equivalences by order of King James.

In Eph 4 you see paul saying exactly this, vss 12-17, the leaders of the church, using their gifts, were to prepare the people for works of service from which they gained spiritual maturity even to the FULL EXTENT of Jesus' on earth. It was through the appointed leaders of the Church, not the people studying on their own.

The leaders of the ekklesia operated under the ekklesia's acceptance of their role... i.e. even when an apostle 'appointed' someone to go to a congregation.. the congregation had the last say as to whether to accept them or not.

Historically, we know that CLEMENT, probably the same man Paul mentioned as approved of for his teaching, wrote that the OT Priesthood was the precursor to the Church of his day. He wrote his epistle around the time JOHN wrote the GOSPELS. So it was definitely written in the times of the Apostolic era. He was bishop of ROME, writing to the bishop of CORINTH, so you apparently had JOHN, the APOSTLE JESUS LOVED, not having much issue with their format. :deadhorse:

We have no support that the clement you are talking about is the same clement Paul was talking about.. it is only an assumption on your part.

How many Pauls where there?.. Johns?.. Marys?

And yes, history is a wonderful thing... if you were actually concerned about the facts of history and not pure hearsay.

All Christians are priests under Jesus our high priest... there are no classes of Christians, we are all viewed exactly the same by God.

And who says I studied alone?... I most certainly did not. 6 years of College (quadruple major) and 4 years of seminary.

 

[IXOYE]

I fail to see how that makes a difference. At all. It's really just a way of saying that they are right and are still right when they are wrong. There's no point of a central church if it can't even live up to it's own charge. .

You saying (see above), is just a way of you saying YOU are right and they are wrong, with no substantiation. In other words, you evade the argument to thump your chest like a gorilla and proclaim victory. Rather intellectually dishonest, and that is meant from a purely debate art, point of view.

How does the RCC not live up to it's own charge. Does it fail to meet YOUR standards? That's why some are appointed leaders, and you aren't. Some are the learners, some are the leaders.
:execute:

The Catholic Church has a mighty flaw, and it's holding on to tradition even as the Bible grows with us in understanding. This started happening, ironically enough, when Christians started breaking away from the Church. .

Ironically, when Xians started breaking away from the Church, it was an act of the flesh. See gal 5:19-21, dissensions and factions. Ironically what Luther described as SOLA SCRIPTURA is very different from what it is described as today.

In fact, the truest irony, is, if you accept SOLA SCRIPTURA the way protestants today describe it, the Bible says Sola Scriptura is faulted. It's a losing proposition. Tradition is biblical, ignoring it is not.

Now, defining it.... that's another issue.

This is a clear sign that these alleged 'ordained successors' were errant from the start, and not all the apostle's teachings obviously availed them. So who's to say they can even be the 'historic Church'?.

Errant how, it's easy to make claims with no argument or substantiation. You seem to excell at it.
Who's to say they didn't, you haven't made that argument yet.

Like many other things, antiquity doesn't always equate to authenticity. The historic Church is simply Christian fellowship, and the Bible doesn't really stray too far from that.

Yes, it's much more likely that the 10000th person that hears the rumor will be closer to the original comment.

You really have some vitriolic issues.

 

[IXOYE]

The bible does have very clear requirements for eldership. Unfortunately not a single Roman Catholic Priest meets those requirements (except for anglican married priests that were allowed into the church).

An elder must be a husband of but one wife... it's pretty straight forward. As there is a lot of wisdom that one develops when dealing with ones wife and raising a family that is totally absent from the Roman Catholic Church and it shows.

Unfortunately, it seems Paul said it was even BETTER than His requirements to remain unmarried.

Although, I can't say that defends the RCC from not allowing marriages, but it does show the fault in your logic.

The point of kids being in line, and of one wife was to show the elder lived the life and bore fruit. I suppose there are other ways to do that as well.

 

[HisServant]

Unfortunately, it seems Paul said it was even BETTER than His requirements to remain unmarried.

Although, I can't say that defends the RCC from not allowing marriages, but it does show the fault in your logic.

The point of kids being in line, and of one wife was to show the elder lived the life and bore fruit. I suppose there are other ways to do that as well.

But scripture didn't go that route.. and neither should we. i.e. if there were other requirements the Holy Spirit would have inspired it to be written down.

But if you look into the history of the RCC, you would see that their decision to require priests not to be married was due to money (the church having to support priest's wives and children)... not a scriptural one.