It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by colbe
neno,
You can look at the first "scandal" Judas was with Our Lord for three
years and look what he did. If your example is true, fine, proof again
humanity has a fallen nature. Remember Cromwell and the English
persecution of Catholics in England and in Ireland. The number is millions
of Irish killed and starved plus English Catholics were killed too.
The faith is still the true faith, man is the sinner.
Originally posted by colbe
neno,
Your response is classic Protestantism. Jesus didn't establish Protestantism so their definition of the Church is just what you stated but, do I ever agree disunity and denomination are from man not God.
The line about Constantine, nah, true history says something different.take care,
colbe
Originally posted by colbe
One sentence protests or a library of books written do not matter. We can know, there is one faith. Come to the faith instead, the Remnant
is Roman Catholic neno.
I am not going to bother with you're anti-Catholic links, they're not true.
Originally posted by colbe
...
Classic denial of the truth. Read history and you'll cease to be whatever
belief you accept at present. Where is the 'reverence' in rejecting
most of Our Lord's revelation in the Gospel? What happened, your
comments are so snotty but this is the intention of thread.
Promise me cloudyday, if God shows you the true faith is Roman Catholicism, that you accept His enlightenment and then you will become Catholic? Same for everyone else here....I wish.
Originally posted by colbe
Eric,
Jesus used the word "Church" singular in giving Peter, the first Pope the keys of authority. Recall, like David in the Old Covenant.
Roman Catholicism was referred early on the Church. St. Ignatius, third
Bishop of Antioch first called to the Church Catholic. He is an Apostolic Father.
Originally posted by nenothtu
Originally posted by colbe
neno,
Your response is classic Protestantism. Jesus didn't establish Protestantism so their definition of the Church is just what you stated but, do I ever agree disunity and denomination are from man not God.
Nor did he establish Catholicism. It is just another denomination, established to serve the needs of the Roman Empire. Jesus established the Church, the Faith. He applied no modifiers like "Roman Catholicism". That is to be found nowhere in the Bible. It is a pronouncement of fallible mortals.
The line about Constantine, nah, true history says something different.take care,
colbe
What does your "true" history say in the matter, and where does it come from? What is it's origin?
History in general records that the Roman Catholic Church was established by Constantine. "In hoc signo vinces".
Originally posted by EricD
Originally posted by colbe
Eric,
Jesus used the word "Church" singular in giving Peter, the first Pope the keys of authority. Recall, like David in the Old Covenant.
Roman Catholicism was referred early on the Church. St. Ignatius, third
Bishop of Antioch first called to the Church Catholic. He is an Apostolic Father.
Ok, thanks for the feedback.
So that we are working under the same definitions and can move this discussion forward, please give me a few examples of things that the Church has specifically done (positive or negative), so I can get a feel for what you mean by the 'Church'.
For example, did the Church build something, did the Church fund something, did the Church declare something (outside the Papacy or the Magesterium).
Unfortunately, if when you say 'the Church' you mean the huge megalithic entity that is comprised of every believer, than it is hard to say the Church ever did anything. If, on the other hand, you are referring to duly authorized representatives, than the Church has done many things, both good and bad.
Like you (I assume), I believe that the Church is comprised of sinners and those sinners have indeed engaged in some heinous acts in the past, just as Peter denied Christ.
Ericedit on 23-3-2012 by EricD because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by colbe
neno,
No offense but there is more to 2000 years of Christian history than history recording one sentence. It's the "Constantine" sentence, non-Catholic's response to say the Church isn't Catholic.
The Bible Protestants request chapter and verse from is a Catholic book. The Church assembled the Bible.
How the Canon of the Bible (the official catalogue of inspired books) was officially declared.
All books that were considered for the Cannon, but not included were called Apocrypha, and thus declared not inspired.
362 A.D. Catholic Church's Council of Rome defines the Canon of Holy Scripture.
382 Pope Damasus issues a listing of the present OT and NT Canon of 73 books
383 Saint Jerome translates the Latin Vulgate from Greek & Hebrew
393 Council of Hippo (North Africa) approves the present Canon of 73 books
397 Council of Constantinople produces first bound Bible (the Vulgate: previously, all
were separate books)
397 Council of Carthage (North Africa) approves the same OT and NT canon
405 Pope Saint Innocent I approves the Canon again and closes it (with 73 books)
take care,
colbe
Originally posted by colbe
Hi Eric,
When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church.
colbe
Originally posted by EricD
Originally posted by colbe
Hi Eric,
When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church.
colbe
Ok, great. Thanks.
That being the case, I believe that this specific debate is for naught. You wouldn't argue that members of the Church committed acts that were heinous, correct?
So, it's just a question of defining terms. Would you agree?
Thanks,
Eric
Originally posted by cloudyday
Originally posted by EricD
Originally posted by colbe
Hi Eric,
When I say "Church" I mean the teachings of the Church.
colbe
Ok, great. Thanks.
That being the case, I believe that this specific debate is for naught. You wouldn't argue that members of the Church committed acts that were heinous, correct?
So, it's just a question of defining terms. Would you agree?
Thanks,
Eric
I've been scratching my head since yesterday trying to understand what this post means and what you two are discussing. The religious forum is by far the craziest on ATS in my opinion. (Not that I'm saying there is anything crazy about your post; I obviously missed something somewhere. )edit on 24-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by cloudyday
reply to post by EricD
Like you said if we define "the Church" to mean the teaching of the Catholic Church then there isn't much to discuss. How about if we agree that "the Church" or "the Catholic Church" means "the Catholic Church including everything except the lay people and the actions of the lay people"? So we would include actions, teachings, traditions, laws, policies, finances, clergy, and the bad behavior of the clergy when that bad behavior came to someone's attention and was allowed to happen again.
So non-Catholics with a broader view of "the Church" need to use some other term like "all Christians" to avoid confusion. And anybody who wants to speak about the teachings of the Catholic Church or anything narrower should also use a different term.edit on 24-3-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by colbe
...
There is one Church, the RCC.
I said when I reply often I am talking about the teachings of the Church.
It's both, the Church are/were the people of God who follow the Church, all her teachings. Non-Catholic Christians do not have a "broader view", they have rejected Church teaching and accept new teachings of men not God. What they do accept of God came from the Church, the RCC. They accept the Bible, the Bible is a Catholic book. And they accept a few things "outside of Scripture", the oral tradition but fail to see the fact.
The pinnacle of Roman Catholic belief is the Holy Eucharist. The block, non-Catholic Christians have rejected the "grace" of God given through the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. They have no ministerial priesthood. They have no way to "confect" the Eucharist so now call it only a symbol. Not true.
How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.
They must come home, it will happen, pray everyone does, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when the Great Warning happens.
Originally posted by colbe
There is one Church, the RCC.
I said when I reply often I am talking about the teachings of the Church.
Non-Catholic Christians do not have a "broader view", they have rejected Church teaching and accept new teachings of men not God.
What they do accept of God came from the Church, the RCC. They accept the Bible, the Bible is a Catholic book.
And they accept a few things "outside of Scripture", the oral tradition but fail to see the fact.
The pinnacle of Roman Catholic belief is the Holy Eucharist. The block, non-Catholic Christians have rejected the "grace" of God given through the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. They have no ministerial priesthood. They have no way to "confect" the Eucharist so now call it only a symbol. Not true.
How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood?
And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.
They must come home, it will happen, pray everyone does, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians when the Great Warning happens.
Originally posted by colbe
How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.
Originally posted by EricD
Originally posted by colbe
How is it Protestants accept the Old Covenant ministerial priesthood and reject the New Covenant ministerial priesthood? And to repeat, why do they reject the teachings of the Church but accept her book, the Bible? Two questions which never get answered.
I believe that most Protestants believe that Catholicism started after Constantine made Christianity an 'approved' religion, while you and I believe that Catholicism started with Christ and was stewarded by Peter and the Popes that followed him.
As we know that the Bible existed before Constantine, in their belief, the Bible is not a Catholic book.
They also don't believe in the Apostolic Succession that allows for Catholic priests to claim a lineage back to the Apostles for the same reason. They don't believe that the Catholic Church existed prior to the mid 300's.
Clearly, you, I and other Catholics disagree with them.
Eric