blainefabin
First of all I am not one of those people that thinks the big bad Catholic church is to be blamed for everything.

Good, because I'm not into blaming games either.

Just because I don’t blame the RCC doesn’t mean I think they are faithful to the word of God, they are not. Their doctrines are very flawed. That in it’s own is not really a problem, there is at least one fatal flaw, it is the doctrine of infallibility.

I'm sure that there are many things that you dissagree with.. that's cool. I find the doctrine of infallibility essential to the church.
 

Because you ask about the Catholic church I will respond.
Only God is infallible. The only human that was infallible was Jesus, who was God made flesh. When a church claims their leader has infallible doctrine they are exalting their leader to the level of God.
Peter had a flawed doctrine, which Paul corrected.

how can i trust what you say here? if you are not infallible then there is a chance that your assumtion here is wrong. I am wondering though if you correctly understand what infallibility is about,, at least what it means from a catholic perspective? it doesn't mean sinless or like jesus... it simply means that the pope and magesterium are protected from error when defining faith and morals.

Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

He set down rules -- doctrine -- that the Gentiles were to live like the Jews. Rules even he did not follow.
If Peter was the first Pope then the Popes do not have perfect doctrine.

again you are confusing infallibility with impeccability.. peter, and every pope after him were sinners... some very bad sinners. the concept of infallibility doesn't protect them from sinning or make them perfect.. it simply protects them under certain circumstances from erring and that is it.

There is no solid evidence Peter ever went to Rome, so it is unlikely he had anything to do with the development of the church in Rome. That he went to Rome is a fable, the Catholic Church looks to their genealogy of Popes and teachers to give support for their teachings.

actually there is evidence that peter was in rome. this is funny because there actually is no evidence that he did not go to rome. if it were a fable don't you think the early christians would have said so? some atheists claim that jesus never rose from the dead because the only people that say so were christians..... well that is because it is what they recieved from those before them. some say the bible is suspect because the church decided which books were true and which were not....

 

The reasoning is because you have teachers that taught this in the past it must be true since it is closer to the time of Christ.
The fact is the Catholic Church was extremely powerful and suppressed those that taught differently. They controlled history.
To put your faith in the history of man instead of trusting God to reveal truth in your heart is a fundamental flaw.

as i mentioned above, the historical evidence is imortant to what we believe today..... but here is a question for you.... what will you say when i tell you that what God revealed in my heart was that the catholic church with it's infallible leader was the truth? you cannot simply assign everyone in disagreement with you to putting faith in men...

I don’t need to have an extensive knowledge of the history of the Catholic church, I can know from their doctrines of today to know they are at odds with the gospel.
Wanting to raise their leaders to the level of God they tell you to refer to them as “Father”.

Matthew 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

This is not talking about your earthly parent, this is talking about those who have charge over your spiritual life.
I have heard the argument made they called some “sons” therefore “father” is OK.
The bible doesn’t say call no man son.

1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

paul refers to himself as father..

I worship Jesus. The bible tells us we are not to make images of those we worship, worse than that Catholic church puts out images that are blatantly perverted.

the ark is an image...it even has other images on it....

I bet there is at least one picture on the wall of your church of a longhaired man that you call Jesus.
In fact I bet there are many such pictures in the Vatican City.
This is a most vile violation of the word of God. It is no more a picture of Jesus then it is a picture of my Great, Great, Great, Grandfather.
In fact it cannot possibly be Jesus. There is absolutely no possibility Jesus looked anything like that.
Jesus committed no sin. There was no shame found in Him. He never would have had long hair.

while i agree that chances are jesus never looked like that, other chances are that he may have had long hair...  in jewish custom there was the vow of nazarite where those who took the vow were not allowed to cut their hair... samson had long hair yet the bible doesn't say that was his shame does it?

To promote a picture of Jesus as a sinner is a great sin.
Catholics look to their church for understanding, believing the church is the one to divide the truth. The bible says YOU must be the workman rightly dividing the truth.

the catholic church doesn't promote jesus as a sinner.

There are many areas where Catholic teaching is in violation to the word of God. The bible warns about one that is unique, as far as I know,  to the Catholic church.

1 Timothy 4:3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

The Catholic Church forbids marriage--this is a fact. The priesthood cannot marry, not by choice, but by church doctrine.
In fact the bible teaches that those in charge of the Church must have been the husband of one wife, (not divorced). They must have raised obedient children. I know your argument concerning Paul. I don’t know of any proof he had never been married. His wife could have died, his child could have been grown.

i have no argument concerning paul...
i would like to point out that the catholic church does not forbid to marry... it has a sacrament called matrimony. that the priests in the roman rite are under a discipline to not marry is entirely different than a doctrine to not marry. that discipline is in place for practical reasons but could change.... who knows. regarless, the church doesn't teach not to marry.

One of the reasons the child abuse issue got out of hand is because those in charge had never raised a family.
Before you start thinking I am saying something I am not, let me make this very clear.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE PRIESTS ABUSED CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE UNMARRIED. There are plenty of married perverts. Those in charge did not deal with the issue in a responsible manner.
Shipping the pervert off to another part of the country to offend again was bad parenting.
The failure to deal with the problem responsibly goes all the way up to the Pope.

i think the issue of pedophile priests is horrible and i also don't think it has anything to do with celibacy, i also think that there is a great need for reform in this matter,,,, but even if this issue goes all the way to the pope it still would not make the pope infallible, it would only show that he too is a sinner.

I almost forgot, I did not say, “the catholic church fell away by the great schism”.  

oh sorry. who did? it was on your post.

mike

The difference between being "Religious" and being "Christian" is that "Christians" are supposed to be letting "Christ" live inside of them and work through them.  Christ wasn't all about keeping a bunch of rules, but about LOVE.  Loving our neighbor, loving God.  So, if you're following a bunch of rules and you don't  have love, then you're religious.  But if your focus is on the greatest commandments, LOVE your God and LOVE your neighbor, then you're a Christian.  

candice

i see the point you are making because i used to believe similarly. i don't anymore see a difference between being a christian and being religious. if religion is just about rules. being a chrisitian is about rules, even if it is a rule about being against rules such as antonomianism. Christ himself gives us rules, in the form of a commandment; the epistles are nothing but a pile of rules and guidelines. these rules define what it is to have faith, by telling us how to love.
(Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.)
 now the point i am getting at is that someone can still follow the rules for the rules sake or for their own self-righteous sake and not be religious, but in all practicality we need to stop trying to take the religion/relation out of being a christian. It's only function is to create division by implying that this group of christians doesn't really believe or that group is trying to earn and completely ignores another rule about trying to remove tares from among the wheat. it really is not our job to judge.

mike

Sounds like you are saying it IS someones fault. Blaming Satan, classic. Do you really think Satan is responsible for the Great Schism and Reformation?

Some people pick and choose what they want from the bible some people pick and choose what they want from posts.
I also said:

God raises churches up, but they are run by very fallible men. So they fall away.

Calvin and Luther and others of the Reformation could see how the church was no longer faithful to the word of God. They weren’t perfect, but God raised them up.
Concerning The Great Schism the Catholic Church had already fallen away.
Even while the bible was being written churches were falling away, the 7 churches of Revelation are an example of that. Today you would a great deal of difficulty finding a believer in that part of the world.
There were the beginnings of division in the Apostles themselves.

i disagree with most of this. first calvin luther and others (zwingli?) saw areas that they thought needed reform in the church. they were not the only ones, just the ones that started new churches out of it with new doctrines. the catholic church did reform but that is another matter.

you need to state why you think the catholic church fell away by the great schism, not just make the assertion.

it is true that during the apostles own life such heresies as gnosticism had arisen and there were issues in each of the churches, but it is also clear that the orthodox nature of the church was keeping things together. that abuse will happen is no great surprise, but that doesn't mean the whole church has fallen. the very fact that we see correction in the bible should imply that these issues were there and being dealt with.

Galatians 2:11  But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Interestingly the Catholic Church looks to Peter as their first Pope with infallible doctrine, and here the bible says his doctrine was flawed.

there is a difference between infallible doctrine and impeccable character. that peter was being a hypocrite in his action does not mean he was teaching error. paul doen't confront peters teaching, but he does confront his character. many people misunderstand what is meant by the pope being infallible, which is sad. but this portion of scripture does not demonstrate anything about his doctrine, only that peter too is a sinner saved by grace.

mike

I never said that one couldn't be happy and be celibate. In fact, I know that unmarried people will be happier if they stay celibate.

However, God created sex for marriage.
I have serious doubts that He intended for any married couple to live a life of celibacy.  

i agree with you for the most part, but if there is an exception it may be that mary and joseph are it. i understand the problem this creates especially in our day and age when it is common to have sex even before marriage, but the other end of it is that there is no history of mary actually having intercourse at all after the birth of jesus. in fact we find just the opposite in the early writings of christian leaders.

mike

Ebia, Jesus said we have to be born again of water and the spirit to enter heaven. The Lutheran church teaches that we are born again when we are baptized. MANY people who are baptized as infants later become atheists. Now you tell me how a person can be born again and enter heaven if he is an atheist?

heidi

lutherans probably believe this because it is what is in the bible... why aren't you aware of this? the fact that born again is referring to baptism is not only a lutheran doctrine but a catholic and orthodox one too. you can find it in the church fathers from the earliest times.

what would be beneficial for you to do is  get some good church history under your belt to help you better understand some of these issues you claim to be an authority on.

at any rate your argument fails for the fact that even those that are baptized as adults, or claim to be born-again by reading a prayer on a tract or going forward at an altar call have also become atheists.

the concept of infant baptism from a catholic perspective, and i assume the lutheran as well is all dependant on it's conclusion in confirmation... this to catholics is the conclusion of the rite of initiation.. where the person reaffirms their profession of faith and promises made on their behalf at baptism. so while infants are baptized the fact remains that the completion of this sacrament if fulfilled when they are older...

i actually know a friend that chose not to be confirmed because at the time she did not have the faith. years later she decided to persue God through faith and was confirmed as a 25 year old adult.

mike

Ummm, I get what you posted, I think...

So, your not catholic? I get that much.  

?? why wouldn't i be?

mike

I was at a funeral at a Lutheran church yesterday nad was deeply saddened by what I hear from the Pastor. He said on the one hand that we are born again at baptism and that no one can come between oursleves and God. I most certainly agree with the last part of his statement which is referring to his true sheep. But I know many, many people who were baptized aas infants who are now atheists. Therefore is Jesus's true sheep listen to His voice, then the atheists who were once baptized are obvioulsy not his true sheep. I always knew that the Lutheran church taught that we are saved when we are baptized, but the fact that the pastor cannot see these contradictions is deeply troubling.

actually i know several people who were born again as adults and baptized as adults that are now atheists, new agers, gay/lesbiens, etc etc. i think if you are going to look at the surface you will only see superficially, but if you look at the doctrine surrounding infant baptism you may see a larger consistency to the teaching. regardless, don't be confused, infants as well as adults change their minds.

In addition, at the ende of the service, the pasor commedn the spirit of the dead person into heaven. I know for a fact that the dead person was an atheist! I guess according to the Lutheran and catholic churches, ALL of us are saved! By the priests and pastors no less! It always hurts me when our Lord Jesus christ is given a backseat in the Christian church.

catholics and lutherans absolutely do not believe we are saved by pastors and priests... i pray for people all the time and don't expect to be placed on the throne. a person prays for the person that has just died... for god to have mercy on his soul. this has nothing to do with being saved by the pastor...unless your just nit picking and finding fault where there is none to justify your own tradition.

mike

You Brighter possibilities theory is the reasoning Buddhist use as to why there is more then one sect. And yet, they have so few Sects in comparison to us.

Blaine- You make a good point, but JN is right. There are a few good protestants on the board. I can't think of any off hand...

again brothers and sisters,  my apologies.

mike

Hi Mike -
It is my personal opinion that you should rephrase

"the protestants"

 to "some protestants".  I believe we here on C-Unite should do our part in avoiding 'wholesale labeling'.  That won't happen without an effort from each of us (me included, which is why I posted this reply)...

Heaven has a place for all who love Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as the only way to the Father.

Love in Him,
JN

sorry JN.
i did not intend to label all protestants... just those on this thread that instantly accused the catholic church...again...

my apologies to you and any other protestant who are not doing this.
mike

to me being part of the catholic church is the same thing as being christian. if you want to say they are 2 different things fine but that is just your own religious idea.

mike

YOU BRING THIS UP ALOT WHAT RELIGION BELEAVES ITS BY WORKS

I think you already know the answer.

i know its catholics , but my catholic friends dont think like that. thats why im confused.

I have had a lot of roman catholic friends, most of them are now ex-roman catholics. I have been used to lead them to the Lord. When they become Christians they leave the roman religion.


Thank You Jesus

Brother Love

   <))><

wow great! i have been helping many people who have been mislead by people like you come back to the church, and even bringing a few who have never been catholics along too.

mike

Like you they just change religions, like I said when they become Christians they leave the roman religion behind. And Real Christians will not go back.

nice try but this sort of manipulation does nothing for me. real christians will and do go back all the time.. just as soon as they put on their thinking caps and start to see all the inconsistencies in the attacks against the catholic church. all true christians are concerned with truth, and those that seek shall find... like me.



mike

That being the case, why are there so many more Baptist sects then there are Catholic ones? The rebellion does contribute to the large split of Christianity, and that is the Split between the Sacrament/Ancient Church and the Protestant/Evangelical Church. However that does not account for even 1/2 the denominations in the earth today.

tibby
the problem really has nothing to do with the catholic church.. it has to do with a doctrine introduced during the reformation called private interpretation. apart from being entirely unscriptural, it is the real root of the problem.. people feel they are led by the spirit and then they dissagree. since there is no authority to end the dispute, someone to bind and loose, the church splits. i personally have seen several splits in my own church as well as several other local churches in the last ten years.... they all claim the same thing and attack with the same thing... both sides claim some exclusive knowledge because of their own private interpretation, and accuse the other of falling for traditions of men. sound familiar? there is a reason they call themselves protestants.

i am amazed though how quickly the protestants on this specific thread tried to blame the catholic church.... how silly of them. clearly they don't even understand the mechanics of their own faith, yet they are trying to define ours. they accuse the catholic church of being to powerful and binding, keeping all under rome, then turn right around and tell that rome is actually tossing all to the wind. please make up your mind people.

mike

 The church at Rome tries to take credit for this compilation, but much of the writings and scriptures had been collected and were in the hands of early local church bishops long before the local church at Rome took it upon themselves to predominate one bishop over all bishops in all local congregations.

The catholic church takes credit for the compilation not the roman church..

it should be understood that the reason for the compilation was, as in acts with circumcision, dispute. the bishops gathered and agreed and the pope closed the session. if disputes did not arise there would have been no need to compile the canon. while it is true that some bishops had lists of books, some even equalling the canon decided upon it is also a fact that some did not.... the canonization by the church put an end to what is authentic and what is not once and for all.

also the predominance of Rome started way before the compiling of scriptures... since this thread is not really about the primacy of rome i will end it here but feel free to start a new thread... i can provide plenty of evidence that the bishop of rome carried the succession of peter.

however, even if the earliest of the earliest bishop had a complete canon of scripture it would still prove the point that sacred tradition is valid. that early bishop could not appeal to the old testament to support his claim that this new testament was valid. In the same way the councils that decided the books to be canonized based their decisions on what had been passed down to them through tradition as valid scripture from the apostles.

i have given sufficient bible evidence for the concept of sacred tradition as part of the valid word of God as well as existing before and being the cause of the written word. the catholic churches have believed this from the beginning, and so we really have no problem with it and it is supported in the bible.

mike

Alright now, some of us have been accused of being hard on Rome.  Let’s do this.  Some of us keep saying that certain of Rome’s doctrine are unscriptural and this seems to have upset people so…let’s be more positive here.  Let’s do this – instead of seeking out those teachings that are unscriptural let’s find major teachings of Rome that are scriptural.

All we need to do is list Rome’s other major, defining doctrines and list scripture for them.  Remember the doctrine has to be supported by scripture in order to be listed.  This way we are being more positive.

Example:  Rome says it believes in the Trinity.  OK, I’ll buy that - Scripture – I John 5:7, 8; II Cor. 13:14; Matt. 28:19

Now, your turn.

May God bless

what would be good is to first show us from scripture that the scripture is the sole authority concerning faith.

but to support the catholic doctrine of Tradition by using scripture...

 "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

the early church of acts "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42)

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.  

which gospel do we find jesus saying this? how then apart from tradition did paul know christ ever said such a thing.

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,  
 Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;  
 Luk 1:3 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 is able to write the gospel because of tradition... he clearly was not an eyewitness.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;  
 Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.  

concerning circumcision it is clear that the church had as jesus said the power to bind and loose...

mike

Michael,

You can start with the questions i asked you several pages ago. Please tell us where Jesus said to pray to his mother. Please tell us where he said to call the pope Holy Father.

Now, Heidi, shame on you using such persecuting words  .  I mean how dare you ask such a simple question.    The answer should be insteresting.  Do you like answers using psycological warfare?  I hope so because that is what I suspect you will get.  Do not, I said, do not expect a simple, scriptural answer, but more of a long dissertion resorting to how mean and unloving you and I are.  Oh, I forgot, how we misrepresent and slander Rome.  I've seen their own Canons show what they believed was contrary to  scripture - but remember, scripture means nothing to Rome, espcecially when it crosses their Canons and teachings for then scripture is from the "back seat" and then thrown completely out the window.

In fact a good excercise would be to find any scripture that supports anything Rome believes.  Well, maybe the trinity, maybe, not sure about that!  Yes, I'm exagerating a bit here - but not much.  Think about it - take the main teachings of Rome and see if scripture supports any of them.

May God bless.

By the way - has anybody wondered what the "BW" stands for in "Mr. BW"?  

av catholicism as well as orthodoxy believes in the scripture and tradition,,, this you know well, it is what we profess. if you disagree with that then you disagree but our theology is in keeping with this belief. this belief is entirely scriptural...as i asked heidi, how did the bereans know that paul was speaking truth when he claimed that circumcision was of no benefit? what scripture did they use so as not to rely on the tradition of men? provide this information please otherwise your argument is without grounds.

what is interesting is how protestants and baptists profess the comlete opposite... mainly that everything has to be found in the bible apart from tradition... and yet some of the most popular traditions in the non-catholic realm are purely figments of tradition. the rapture, millenialism, scripture alone, faith alone,  denominationalism, dispensationalism.... these are all traditions of men.

it should be no surprise to see a tradition in catholicism, it is very interesting though that it is just as foundational in protestantism.

anyway instead of weak insinuations and accusations maybe you could back up your statements with facts....rather than psycological warfare.   that would be nice.


Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:  
 Act 15:23 And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:  
 Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:  
 Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,  
 Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
 Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.  
 Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;  
 Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.  

sacred tradition at work.... what scriptures did they appeal to?


mike