Where did the Church first go wrong?

[DrBubbaLove]

As i said there are other's who are seeing it from the same pov as myself. It's not a one sided debate as you would like to think.

Well it is one sided when someone gets to make a false claim and refuses to answer questions about it.

 

[Thursday]

and we might need to clarify also that this first use of the word "catholic" didn't indicate some denomination, but meant to say that the churches which are the forerunners of all of our churches today held the "authentic" and original faith to the exclusion of the Gnostics and other cults and mystery religions that were competing with the Apostolic church in the early days.

Still making things up?

St. Augustine could have cleared this up for you had you bothered to look:

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard."
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sorry if I touched a nerve, not my intention honest. I'm just pointing out the biggest mistake the Church ever made. They were instructed to wait not to introduce a man made voting systems to determine who leads, that decision is always God's. As proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul just a few weeks later.

The choice of Mattias was God's. Paul needed a wakeup call, though, so his choosing was a little different.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not many consider where it first began to go wrong for the church:

I think it was when Adam chose to eat the fruit of the Tree.

 

[Philip_B]

Still making things up?
St. Augustine could have cleared this up for you had you bothered to look:
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they would not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard."
The True Religion, 7,12, 397 A.D.

In fairness to blessed Augustine, the perception of the word Catholic as he used it, may not be quite the same as your could have used it. And I think accusing people of making things up is a poor argument, by the way. Augustine was a western leaning Christian, who spent a long time in Italy, though Hippo was probably more closely connected with Alexandria, and Augustine was certainly aware of the Church in Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch.

 

[Albion]

I didn't ask for more falsehoods, but I got them. You aren't interested in reality, clearly.

Why do you keep coming on here and bashing the Catholic Church with lies?

What are you talking about? It's a well-known fact that there are other churches in addition to the Roman Catholic Church which are led by bishops in Apostolic Succession. That this fact should cause any Catholic to feel his faith threatened surprises me, frankly.

 

[Rick Otto]

Actually your claim would infer He did indeed make mistakes in picking men you desire out of spite against the Church to paint as so fickle that they would according to you IMMEDIATELY go astray and start messing things up. So claiming what they did in Acts 1 was wrong does imply that God, when He came here himself to initiate that Church and apparently failed so miserably at picking the right people, made a mistake about His claim to be able to help them in their efforts to feed His sheep. So by inference you would also be claiming it took most of two millennium for men following His actions then to correct the mistakes He made then.

Why is a simple disagreement is always blown into church hating?
Is it from being on the defensive since 1054?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

There was nothing charitable or relevant to the thread discussion by adding the various smears to the Church. Drawing of lots as I said comes from a Jewish tradition, and it was and would be now a way to make a group decision between two EQUALLY valid choices without getting emotional or hurt feelings into mix.

yes we've established that already, no problem.

That one cannot acknowledge at least that much or that God could have a hand even in that outcome simply because of an obvious hatred toward anything Catholic would not be an example of pro-Catholic either, and the views expressed were not neutral either.

Now who smearing! (not me)

As it was both of the valid choices were a blessing to the Church, so am still unclear how this was the so called first wrong step.

Who knows, you might not ever see it?

What exactly was wrong with the election of Matthias?

I know my memory is getting bad too Can't wait for the incorruptible body

Is it that they picked a replacement at all? Is it that they picked the wrong one? Is it that God cannot influence a random event if He cared to? Is it wrong because they prayed for His guidance in the outcome of a random event to help them decide between two equally qualified men because they could not or did not want to? Is it wrong that obviously unable to come to consensus between the two men and so elect one outright that they instead relied on the outcome of a random event? Is it that they should have waited for Saint Paul (which was an original claim since retracted apparently)?

Better go back to the OP. This is getting repetitive

Simply stating [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] they drew lots, they were "gambling" with an outcome is not working for me along side your repeated anti-Catholic rhetoric - and it is not unsimilar to the joke about Protestants fuming over Catholics daring to catch a part bus to the Casino while hiding their faces from their buds all driving individually to the same place.

That's the first mention of gambling on this thread, if your memory wasn't so bad I'd say you where being troll like.

Say one has two equally valid, righteous choices and unable to pick, decide to pray and ask God to help one choose by just allowing one to either not act at all in deciding the outcome IOW by just letting whatever will happen happen without one acting to influence or stop one alternative, or randomly act in some a manner that naturally results in one choice without favoring either. Am not seeing the difference there morally with what the Apostles are depicted doing and am willing to bet many here objecting if they have lived long enough have done exactly that when they truly did not know what to do. Let it ride is essentially the same idea - so whether one helped in creating the outcome of a random of event (draw straws) or just let it happen, if the alternative are truly equal and both righteous am at a loss what the Christian is claiming to have done wrong either way.

We keep going round in circles, and i keep telling you that Jesus never taught us to cast lots. He just said 'wait'.

It is only if we assume there was one choice clearly better than the other that we could say the Apostles allowed something to be random that should not have been. But that is not a claim made yet. And even there, one is also doubting God could work through a contingency to the outcome that actually said to occur shortly after He told them He would be with them always and also whatever they decide to bind and loose will stand.

Ahhr I think you've almost got it and actually God did work round their mistake. God always works round our mistakes.

 

[Dosblade]

Something as I see it.. the casting lots for the next Apostle was man doing it not God. For ME seems God chose Paul..anyway.. neither here nor there.

Where it went wrong. God always seems to turn what we do wrong for His glory praise GOD. Doubt. Satan told them.. a lie.. a lie that seems like..what in the world can go wrong with one bite ..right? What God did through Christ has not changed in anyway. WE as man have. Where God is 1st.. Jesus.. sweet sweet holy spirit as it SHOULD BE..we but SO many things before this and PEOPLE and see NOTHING wrong with it. If you even TRY to speak about it...seek 1st the kingdom of GOD...not man nor any man/woman. We so many times left our 1st love.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't want to discuss it. I offered some information and it was not intended to start a lengthy or heated debate. But, as often happens, there usually are other posters who insist upon challenging every comma if they read something that is not supportive of their own views.

I don't even recall the original statement or my objection to part of it, but if I did object it was to the off topic anti-Catholic opinion nature that would be objected to. Glad you don't want to talk about it. Should be no surprise to someone as knowledgeable and around as long as you have been that a Catholic would object. What ensued from other posters though is exactly why such colored offering of information is not particularly helpful.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

It does say so right there in Acts 1:21-26 " So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab′bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi′as. 24 And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi′as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles."

He is not adding to scripture at all.

You keep on yelling at everybody they "clearly we don't know the Bible well enough." but you then say that Phillip added words to scripture? It's right there in black and white.

WHERE!!??

I suggest you stop with your personal attacks at people. It sheds a bad light on you.

That's a personal attack right there and an unfounded accusation!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

...How convenient a claim to be so piously different than the Apostles. ..

seems the curse of cf forums to be inappropriately nonorthodox

 

[Guide To The Bible]

did you perhaps mean belligerent?

I expect no less from someone who doesn't know their Bible very well to start calling other people names.

 

[Philip_B]

Casting Lots is a long established practice and very Old Testament. There is quite a good article about it here. Casting lots is more about being open to the divine, rather than the idea of a game of chance which seems to be what is being suiggested in some posts.
What is casting lots? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

 

[Guide To The Bible]

I didn't ask for more falsehoods, but I got them. You aren't interested in reality, clearly.

Why do you keep coming on here and bashing the Catholic Church with lies?

Yeah like the Catholic church are so helpless. Perhaps a few more burning's at the stake will renew your sense of authority?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What are you talking about? It's a well-known fact that there are other churches in addition to the Roman Catholic Church which are led by bishops in Apostolic Succession. That this fact should cause any Catholic to feel his faith threatened surprises me, frankly.

I would say he is talking about the same thing I was. Someone taking the discussion in this thread down a different path by making the Catholics in this thread defending the Apostles into making that their defense of their being a Pope with the same Authority today as the man who first "stoop up". It was not about that, but the road certainly continued more and more steeply that way ever since the anti- Pope comments were given more and more weight.

 

[Albion]

I don't even recall the statement or my objection to part of it, but if I did object

It was other, more agitated, posters who fit that bill, although it was your inquiry that I was replying to.

Should be no surprise to someone as knowledgeable and around as long as you have b een that a Catholic would object.

Naa. There are some here who simply go nuts with name-calling and accusations if there is the least disagreement shown by other people towards Catholic doctrine or history. Of course, other Catholics are not like that at all (for which, much thanks). I know of no other denomination or communion that is represented here by people who are so primed to take offense.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Much of this post might be seen as flaming and goading, and in accordance with CF etiquette, I shall not respond, save to assure you on this occasion silence does not mean assent.

Proverbs 12:1
King James Bible
Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

 

[Albion]

I would say he is talking about the same thing I was.

I'm sorry to hear it. I would be embarrassed to associate myself with repetitious, deliberately provocative, unnecessarily personal, and--let's admit it--unhelpful rants.

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Casting Lots is a long established practice and very Old Testament. There is quite a good article about it here. Casting lots is more about being open to the divine, rather than the idea of a game of chance which seems to be what is being suiggested in some posts.
What is casting lots? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Where did Jesus teach us that the church was to draw lots? The only lots cast near Jesus was for his clothes as He hung dying for this evil world.