Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

[Darrel Slugoski]

I did try to keep it at purgatory but you did ask a lot of other questions and I tried to address them all.

Fair enough lets focus on salvation , I was just a little overwelmed

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

Which is your problem, not ours, for we are to make all Truth claims subject to testing by Scripture, as noble souls even did for apostolic preaching, (Acts 17:11) and thus Purgatory is to be rejected. However, you appeal is to tradition, yet different conclusions are held on what it teaches.

►The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.


►Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — Death, the Threshold to Eternal Life - Liturgy & Worship - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America


►The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.


Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — Death, the Threshold to Eternal Life - Liturgy & Worship - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
►Despite the high honor and the highest admiration which the Orthodox Church bestows upon the Virgin Mary Theotokos, it does not teach either her immaculate conception or her bodily assumption into the heavens.,

The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well...

Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed. — http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm

►Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25 27).- Papal Primacy - Theology - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

►In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion..

►Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. — Against Ecumenism

►Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries...

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM

►There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - The Charismatic Movement and Orthodoxy

►Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[18] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[19] and Metropolitan Hierotheos[20][21] say the same,

► [From a RC:] Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — Part III: Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet – The War Against Being

Meanwhile, 2Mac 12 testifies to a later and novel declension in Judaism:

Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."

"The passage cited earlier from the Second Book of Maccabees, which was composed by an Alexandrian Jew during the half-century preceding Diodorus's journey, should no doubt be seen against this background." It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. - The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using Free Online OCR - convert scanned PDF and images to Word, JPEG to Word, emp. mine

These are just opinions .the Eastern Orthodox would agree, With Rome , on many aspects of teaching such as the 7 sacraments and apostolic succession ( Pope being the " first amongst equals " which we dont believe )( or Rome being first ) . They too would refer to Sacred Tradition,Church Fathers, and the same scripture to defend these teachings as I would use . The Oriental Orthodox who seperated in the 400s would believe and defend their beliefs in the same way. But they over look the Church Fathers that support Roman Catholic doctrine and do what you do misinterpret or deny or change history to support their understanding or views . There have been doctrine that we developed without them . I have sent a post awhile back to back up my claim . However history , Councils and Church Fathers back us up on doctrine that we ( RC,OO,nd,EO)hold together. Evangelicals go further and seem to claim Scriptural Authority based on each persons or churches interpretation .As a result they end up contradicting each other . On the other hand much of doctrine is similar In our three Churches . We at least have a consistency which your churches do not have .

 

[PeaceByJesus]

These are just opinions .the Eastern Orthodox would agree, With Rome , on many aspects of teaching such as the 7 sacraments and apostolic succession ( Pope being the " first amongst equals " which we dont believe )( or Rome being first ) . They too would refer to Sacred Tradition,Church Fathers, and the same scripture to defend these teachings as I would use . The Oriental Orthodox who seperated in the 400s would believe and defend their beliefs in the same way. But they over look the Church Fathers that support Roman Catholic doctrine and do what you do misinterpret or deny or change history to support their understanding or views . There have been doctrine that we developed without them . I have sent a post awhile back to back up my claim . However history , Councils and Church Fathers back us up on doctrine that we ( RC,OO,nd,EO)hold together. Evangelicals go further and seem to claim Scriptural Authority based on each persons or churches interpretation .As a result they end up contradicting each other . On the other hand much of doctrine is similar In our three Churches . We at least have a consistency which your churches do not have

Someone who blithely dismissive what such source on EOs teaching says as "just opinions," while failing to provide any substantiation that they do not represent EO teaching, and then attempts some sort of argument that is hardly coherent, and then misrepresents what Evangelicals hold to, hardly examples he is fit to engage in meaningful debate on the subject.

Evangelicals go further and seem to claim Scriptural Authority based on each persons or churches interpretation .As a result they end up contradicting each other .

No,can not claim Scriptural Authority based on each persons or churches interpretation, as if there were little popes claiming ensured veracity as your elitist supreme and unhindered individual interpreter does, but can only claim veracity based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the NT church began, contrast to Rome.

Meanwhile, variant interpretations are indeed a reality, yet as has just been partly demonstrated, Catholics claim Authority based on each denomination's interpretation to the degree that they have not been able to reconcile after over 1,000 years!

In addition you have many varieties of Catholics (and thus even some different forum sections here for them) contradicting each other based upon their interpretation of what authoritative church teaching all consists of and its meaning, as well what magisterial level each one may belong to, and thus what degree of assent is required. And what that all means is also subject to variant interpretations.

Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs of all major faith called "Christian," and in stark contrast to Catholics.

Believe me we see many types of Catholics here, both liberals as well as conservative varieties. Virtually all of whom Rome treats as members in life and in death. And you yourself seem to example one, being contrary to the type of RC that warns, as showed,

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — Part III: Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet – The War Against Being

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

Someone who blithely dismissive what such source on EOs teaching says as "just opinions," while failing to provide any substantiation that they do not represent EO teaching, and then attempts some sort of argument that is hardly coherent, and then misrepresents what Evangelicals hold to, hardly examples he is fit to engage in meaningful debate on the subject.

No,can not claim Scriptural Authority based on each persons or churches interpretation, as if there were little popes claiming ensured veracity as your elitist supreme and unhindered individual interpreter does, but can only claim veracity based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which is how the NT church began, contrast to Rome.

Meanwhile, variant interpretations are indeed a reality, yet as has just been partly demonstrated, Catholics claim Authority based on each denomination's interpretation to the degree that they have not been able to reconcile after over 1,000 years!

In addition you have many varieties of Catholics (and thus even some different forum sections here for them) contradicting each other based upon their interpretation of what authoritative church teaching all consists of and its meaning, as well what magisterial level each one may belong to, and thus what degree of assent is required. And what that all means is also subject to variant interpretations.

Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs of all major faith called "Christian," and in stark contrast to Catholics.

Believe me we see many types of Catholics here, both liberals as well as conservative varieties. Virtually all of whom Rome treats as members in life and in death. And you yourself seem to example one, being contrary to the type of RC that warns, as showed,

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — Part III: Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet – The War Against Being






but

The Orthodox and the Catholic Church do hold more similarities than we do with evangelicals .That is a fact and you seemed to imply in your second last post that there were so many differences in the first century that that there was no consensus in doctrine and I attempted to show that there was a consensus in belief regarding in the 7 sacraments..ect with the Orthodox . This is a fact . Your last paragraph is is quoting someone's opinion from a book , which does not necessarily mean it is Orthodox doctrine . It comes across as a anti Catholic , which many evangelicals and Orthodox are . I could just as easily replace the word Catholic with the word Evangelical in that paragraph . Do you think that the Orthodox respect or support Evangelical interpretations of the Bible . Just go to Youtube and see how they view both Catholics and Evangelicals .

There are many Catholics that will disagree with the Church on abortion, contraception...which doesn't mean they are correct or their beliefs are true . The Catholic Church is not a democracy where the church caters to everyone's belief . The Catechism of The Catholic Church is authoritative for Catholics weather they are liberal or not .

Evangelicals do also have differences which are radically different to the Orthodox Church . This too is a fact . You also have differences amongst yourselves . To sate otherwise is to ignore this as a issue .


Each church claims scriptural authority weather they admit it or not . So does the Catholic Church . And to do otherwise is to admit there is no truth or it is relative .

No I think I do have a fair argument and I am worthy enough to point these facts out .

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

Which is based upon a false premise, that of the need for perfection of character (if by grace) in order to be with God, versus penitent faith which appropriates justification, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of.

However, this saving justifying faith, is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus.

The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21)

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)

But which progressive practical sanctification is not the cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our disobedience.

In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism, even without the required wholehearted repentant faith. (Acts 8:38; 8:36,37)

However, since the carnal nature remains and few successfully attain to complete victory over any attachment to sin and perfection of character, then most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory.

There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails and how long are not dogmatically taught, but while salvation by grace thru faith as in sola fide means it is effectual faith being imputed for righteousness that justifies, salvation by grace thru works means that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God, which premise either requires perfection of character in this life (and which merely being made clean in baptism would actually not effect) or postmortem purifying torments.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory

Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

However, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)

And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10)

But of what support is that of praying for men whom the text clearly stated were slain for their idolatry, which is a mortal sin? Meanwhile believing this book was Scripture proper was not required until after Luther died, almost 1400 years after the last book was penned.

Which was to the lost souls like those of Noah's day, "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water," and it is obvious they had not attained to perfection of character. But with His resurrection (Matthew 27:52) the Lord set free those in Abraham's bosom, (Ephesians 4:8,9) which is not purgatory but OT paradise (Luke 23:43) which is now Heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:4)

You resort to that for support? So do the Mormons, and it supports nothing than was it was invoked for, that of their being a resurrection which some ("they," not "we") thought postmortem baptism would effect, but with nothing inferred as purgatory. And which the Holy Spirit would never fail to clearly teach on, if it indeed was of Catholic importance.

Utterly invalidated as explained above in bold, by God's grace.

So you must resort to dark sayings. Rather than Matthew 5:25-26 being "explicit about Purgatory" as Staples imagines this either refers to this life, or punishment in Hell, which is the context of Matthew 5:24-25 (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:27-29; cf. Mark 9:43), and Caths argue (Mt. 1:25) that "until" need not mean a terminus is inferred.

And here this story cannot be analogous to purgatory, since that is for forgiven souls who have some expiation to make for venial sins, but in Matthew 5:22-26, rather than a mere venial sin, the description here is of a "mortal sin." And neither was this man forgiven, but was damned, and given the vast amount he had to pay, i think "Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" (Matthew 5:26) is saying he never will come out,

That is simple, except Rome rejects the 1,000 year reign of Christ in which there will be sin and forgiveness of sins, as Ezekiel shows in his many chapters which defy then as being mere allegory.

Which refers to apostasy, and there are degrees of sin, and of accountability and guilt, thus degrees of punishment, (Matthew 11:20-24) but which description are only about Hell, not some interim place.

Which is simply another example of the egregious extrapolation you must resort to in order attempt to postulate some sort of support for what you can only wish Scripture manifestly taught, but which it does not!
Here the only postmortem reality that is seen in the context is that of Hell: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48) and otherwise it speaks of salt (Mark 9:49,50; cf. Lev. 2:13; Eze 43:24) which represent holiness, which works for peace, and one either has it or they are good for nothing, (Mt. 5:13) and and there is nothing that infers purgatory in order to get it or more of it, though this would be one of many places we could expect to see it if it were true.

Which no more makes it true then believing in postmortem toll house cookies.

Indeed you have, for the problem of lack of evidence and conflict btwn what Scripture and history testifies to necessitated the art of Development of Doctrine.

No, not Catholic distinctives you cannot,which are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).

Which, church,

• 1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
• 2.. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.
• 3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being the source and summit of the Christian faith in which the work of our redemption is accomplished, by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the strong meat (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His meat. (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
• 4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
• 5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," Very Reverend, Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord, His Eminence Cardinal, The Most Reverend the Archbishop, etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called father as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
• 6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
• 7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (petra) or "stone" (lithos, and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church, (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called church fathers concur with.)
• 8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
• 9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
• 10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
• 11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
• 12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
• 13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
• 14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
• 15. Never had a separate class of believers called saints.
• 16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
• 17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as
• " an "omnipotent" or almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• " whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• " who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• " and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• " and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• " for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• " "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• " so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• " and that sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• " for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• " Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• " and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• " including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• " whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• " and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• " and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

.
Meaning you subject what Scripture means to what the Early Church fathers selectively say based upon whether they conform to what Rome says, which is you only infallible authority.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

And thus your argumentation is mere sophistry.

Meaning she says so, or is your argument that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?
.
Go get me the source of that quote and its context, or cease to use it.

So? Answer my question above. Meanwhile, nowhere does the NT teach a separate sacerdotal class of believers, corresponding to the Old Testament priesthood, kohen, for which the distinctive Greek word "hiereus" is uniquely used by the Holy Spirit in NT.

But who never uses that distinctive word for NT church pastors, and instead the words "episkopos" (superintendent or overseer, referring to function), and "presbuteros" (senior, in age, implying maturity, and or position) were used, with both referring to the same person in the pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28)

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

However, since in Catholicism presbyters are considered a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers then Catholicism translates the distinctive Greek word hiereus for their priests as a denoting this distinctive sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never distinctively using the term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

You will never even see them described as conducting the Lord's supper in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts - Revelation, including how they understood the gospels) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels. Though I am sure they did conduct this, yet they are not seen or charged with this in the epistles as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.

Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with and exampled as preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) with believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14

Which is just one of the many Catholic distinctives not seen in the inspired record of what the church did and how they understood the gospels.

All sounds nice . How long did it take you to write this all this out . I would have to write a book to answer you back, so I will suggest one Catholicism and fundamentalism by Karl Keating . It answers all the objections and accusations you have made , I mean all of them . Dare you to read it . Have you read any of the Church Fathers/council documents . Again I can give you the quotes from them which support Catholic ( and Orthodox )interpretation of scripture it would take me a lifetime to write out . It wouldn't take you long to read them , which I have done . Or Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church . I am sure you have not done this and are using tidbit quotes from books without reading the full context of the book . To see how you opponent actually defends itself is my challenge to you to do read out of your comfort zone I can actually see your are misusing our apologetic books and/or other documents unfairly .

There are some things you have written which Catholics would agree with .

It would take me a lifetime to answer you back . But I could give each comment opinion, accusation you have given reasonable response . Overwhelming an opponent with info seems unfair .

By the way send me some books which are anti catholic in nature . It is good to know how your opponent defends itself .

 

[Arsenios]

These are just opinions [of] the Eastern Orthodox

You do go on to say basically that the EO, the OO, and the RC's have more in common with each other than do the non-Apostolic churches...

The test for Holy Tradition is: "Those beliefs held at all times by all Churches in Communion throughout Christian History." And this because the Faith given once for all to the Saints does not change essentially, and the granting and withdrawal of giving and receiving Holy Communion is the ONLY force among the Ekklesia of God for correcting error...

The Latin Church has innovated a lot of doctrines over the last thousand years of their stepping away from the Communion of the rest of Apostolic Christianity... The EO and OO are FAR more easily resolved than those between the EO/OO and the Latins...

Arsenios

 

[Mike Alexander]

The Latin Church for the last thousand years has innovated a lot of doctrines over the last thousand years of their stepping away from the Communion of the rest of Apostolic Christianity..

Considering you are a Russian Orthodox, are we really supposed to be surprised at this comment. I mean really, should we expect a different view?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Orthodox and the Catholic Church do hold more similarities than we do with evangelicals ..

That was never the argument.

That is a fact and you seemed to imply in your second last post that there were so many differences in the first century that that there was no consensus in doctrine

No, that is not what i said, but in response to your assertion;

The thing is both the Orthodox and Catholic Church can trace are heritage and doctrine to the teachings of Christ And his Apostles. ​

I said,

not Catholic distinctives you cannot,which are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).​

and I attempted to show that there was a consensus in belief regarding in the 7 sacraments..ect with the Orthodox . This is a fact .

That was not the issue, but the differences were. For your argument was that of trying to invalidate a faith due to the divisions therein (while also using too broad a definition of the faith group at issue, thus i restricted it to evangelicals). The difference is only a matter of scope and degrees. Since universal unity itself is not a basis for validity, nor comprehensive doctrinal unity, which has ever been a goal not realized, not the strength itself of that unity (in which case cults would win), then the issue in this regards is the degree and strength of that unity is basic Truths, and in heart and doctrine, which the prima NT church set the standard for, under manifest men of God which we do not see the likes of today.
But it is Catholic distinctives that separates the Catholic church from the NT church, as shown.

Your last paragraph is is quoting someone's opinion from a book , which does not necessarily mean it is Orthodox doctrine . It comes across as a anti Catholic

I do not know why you keep misunderstanding what is posted unless you are hardly reading what is posted in refutation and just go on to reiterate your assertions. The last paragraph is clearly not from a anti Catholic, for instead it is anti-Eastern Orthodoxy from a Catholic.

And of course it is an opinion, which was posted as such to support what i said, that you have divisions within what is broadly called Catholicism.

. I could just as easily replace the word Catholic with the word Evangelical in that paragraph

.
Again, what in the world are you reading (nor failing to)? How can such a statement as "none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents" be a charge of evangelicals?

Do you think that the Orthodox respect or support Evangelical interpretations of the Bible.

No, which was not the point. Again.

Just go to Youtube and see how they view both Catholics and Evangelicals .

So Youtube is not opinions?

There are many Catholics that will disagree with the Church on abortion, contraception...which doesn't mean they are correct or their beliefs are true . The Catholic Church is not a democracy where the church caters to everyone's belief .

It means that your church treats them as if they their variant variegated beliefs does not matter, from Ted Kennedy-Catholics to cultic ones.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church is authoritative for Catholics weather they are liberal or not .

Only on paper, for whether liberal or not they are all called and treated as RCs in life and in death, while even the CCC is not held to be an "infallible" document and it is allowed that may err and be subject to correction (and has) to a certain degree. And which can see some difference of opinion.

Evangelicals do also have differences which are radically different to the Orthodox Church .

Why argue against what was never claimed? The problem is the differences from orthodox (small o) NT Church.

This too is a fact . You also have differences amongst yourselves . To sate otherwise is to ignore this as a issue .

And just where did i claim they had no differences? Again, where are you getting what i never argued? So far your reply has been a series of errors regarding what i argued.

Each church claims scriptural authority weather they admit it or not . So does the Catholic Church . And to do otherwise is to admit there is no truth or it is relative .

Wrong. As i expressed, it is the basis for any claim to veracity, and scriptural authority, that matters, and to claim otherwise is to admit there is no truth or it is relative. The pertinent difference btwn you and us is that the basis for your assurance of Truth is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, thus your church is to be held as the supreme law, and with your one basic duty being that of submitting as docile sheep to your pastors, and not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason).

In contrast, for us who hold Scripture as alone being the wholly inspired infallible body of Divine Truth, then we are to be like the noble Truth-loving Bereans who subjected the words of very apostles to examination by Scripture. And which apostles established their Truth clams upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

No I think I do have a fair argument and I am worthy enough to point these facts out

You can think what you want, but the facts are against you.

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

That was never the argument.

No, that is not what i said, but in response to your assertion;

The thing is both the Orthodox and Catholic Church can trace are heritage and doctrine to the teachings of Christ And his Apostles. ​

I said,

not Catholic distinctives you cannot,which are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels).​

That was not the issue, but the differences were. For your argument was that of trying to invalidate a faith due to the divisions therein (while also using too broad a definition of the faith group at issue, thus i restricted it to evangelicals). The difference is only a matter of scope and degrees. Since universal unity itself is not a basis for validity, nor comprehensive doctrinal unity, which has ever been a goal not realized, not the strength itself of that unity (in which case cults would win), then the issue in this regards is the degree and strength of that unity is basic Truths, and in heart and doctrine, which the prima NT church set the standard for, under manifest men of God which we do not see the likes of today.
But it is Catholic distinctives that separates the Catholic church from the NT church, as shown.
I do not know why you keep misunderstanding what is posted unless you are hardly reading what is posted in refutation and just go on to reiterate your assertions. The last paragraph is clearly not from a anti Catholic, for instead it is anti-Eastern Orthodoxy from a Catholic.

And of course it is an opinion, which was posted as such to support what i said, that you have divisions within what is broadly called Catholicism.
.
Again, what in the world are you reading (nor failing to)? How can such a statement as "none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents" be a charge of evangelicals?

No, which was not the point. Again.

So Youtube is not opinions?

It means that your church treats them as if they their variant variegated beliefs does not matter, from Ted Kennedy-Catholics to cultic ones.

Only on paper, for whether liberal or not they are all called and treated as RCs in life and in death, while even the CCC is not held to be an "infallible" document and it is allowed that may err and be subject to correction (and has) to a certain degree. And which can see some difference of opinion.

Why argue against what was never claimed? The problem is the differences from orthodox (small o) NT Church.

And just where did i claim they had no differences? Again, where are you getting what i never argued? So far your reply has been a series of errors regarding what i argued.

Wrong. As i expressed, it is the basis for any claim to veracity, and scriptural authority, that matters, and to claim otherwise is to admit there is no truth or it is relative. The pertinent difference btwn you and us is that the basis for your assurance of Truth is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, thus your church is to be held as the supreme law, and with your one basic duty being that of submitting as docile sheep to your pastors, and not to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason).

In contrast, for us who hold Scripture as alone being the wholly inspired infallible body of Divine Truth, then we are to be like the noble Truth-loving Bereans who subjected the words of very apostles to examination by Scripture. And which apostles established their Truth clams upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and not the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

You can think what you want, but the facts are against you.

The Orthodox do share the same understanding of the seven sacraments and would defend our understanding from scripture,the early Councils and the Early Church Fathers . What I am trying to point out That the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox will defend the 7 sacraments using the same scriptures I would . You are correct when you say there are real differences also especially after separation occurred . Our Churches were not divided at one time and we were the only Church to interpret scripture . Now it is true we there were individuals who deviated from this and stated other movements such as the Gnostics , Arians which sowed discord in the early church which resulted in Councils to combat these heresies . But during the 4 centuries there was a understanding/belief of the seven sacraments Baptism, confession, the eucharist..which we held together . Until the first schism with the Oriental Orthodox and latter in in 1024 with the Eastern Orthodox. In understanding this we can see the early church held to certain beliefs in common which Evangelicals don't hold to . Even the Early reformers held closer views to the Catholic Church ( eg infant baptism as a sacrament , the presence of the lord in the Eucharist = Lutheran , infant baptism = presbyterian ) . The further away you get the more we do not share in common .

This is important to understand , because you are not just denying Catholic belief but you will also have to deny Orthodox beliefs . You are in fact saying that the NT church is now the evangelical church and only evangelicals understand scripture like the NT church . The problem which you seem to deny is that each evangelical/protestant church interprets scripture differently. Truth requires more than saying no church has exclusivity to truth .

I believe Jesus founded only one Church with the the only correct interpretation of scripture . The Orthodox calm this ,the Catholic Church claims this and each protestant church does also even if you don't want to admit it . I believe that scripture and the early Church Fathers points to the Church of Rome . I also believe each church will manipulate scripture and the Church Fathers to deny that the Church of Rome is the true church, just as you will accuse me of doing . ( I believe the scriptures and Church Fathers are clear ) I would have to show you what scripture says or what the Church fathers have said abou Rome and the Papacy to prove my point and of course you would counteract it .

 

[Arsenios]

The Orthodox and the Catholic Church do hold more similarities than we do with evangelicals .

True...

That is a fact and you seemed to imply in your second last post that there were so many differences in the first century that that there was no consensus in doctrine and I attempted to show that there was a consensus in belief regarding in the 7 sacraments etc with the Orthodox .

There used to be UNITY of belief, for the Western Church was the most persecuted Church after Constantinople became the New Rome... The Council acclaimed the Tome of Leo, for instance, in 451, concerning the single Person of Christ which had two natures... We both still do hold this tenet as dogma, and in non-Apostolic churches, it is still up for debate as is every single word of the Bible, because each person is burdened with figuring out for himself the meaning of every sentence in the Bible - And this because the Bible and everyone's individual interpretation of it is their cornerstone. Persuasion and proofs from Biblical texts for the basis of each individual's private interpretation of Scripture which is seen as essential for Salvation...

The Catholic view, EO, OO and Latin, all hold that repentance from sin, not study of the Bible, is the core of Christian life, and that in that life, God gives Life... And that to this end, God gave His Son, and discipled His Disciples to evangellize the Earth in works of Power founding the Churches and the Mysteries therein which give to fallen man healing from sins and the Medicines of Immortality... We believe the Nicene Creed's words when we confess: "And I believe in one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church..."
We BELIEVE IN the Church, you see... The Latins believed in the power of the Church and in their Papal Jurisdiction OVER the worldly Church, and in this they have wandered far from the Truth... But their children of the Reformation, believe in themselves privately interpreting Holy Writ, thereby swallowing the camel while straining the gnats of endless interpretations of doctrines based on their reading of the Bible...

I read the Bible as a non-Christian [or so I thought at the time - God eventually corrected me], and with no preconceptions at all, I can tell you, the one thing I knew for certain was that I needed someone to explain what I waas reading. I read about the Ethiopian Eunuch and that was me... So as to doctrine, what I loved about the EOs was that they had no changes in doctrines from the beginnings, and had 2 thousand years to get it all ironed out... And with that, I could concentrate on the practice of living a Christian Life in Christ in repentance from sin by means of confession, Baptism, Church Services, Anointing, receiving the Holy Mysteries, and in a prayer community [Parish] in which we live in intercessory prayer for each other and raise our children and live lives pleasing to God...

Each church claims scriptural authority whether they admit it or not . So does the Catholic Church . And to do otherwise is to admit there is no truth or it is relative.

The Orthodox do not claim authority over anyone, but do claim 2000 years of Church commentary on Scripture which we regard as authoritative... The Latins came to regard their Pope as having authority over the Church which was to have been in subjection to Rome when She had worldly power... So we like to say that whereas the concensus of the Church Fathers over 2000 years is authoritative for interpretation of Scripture [and for all matters pertaining to the Church catholic], it is not in the office of any one Church in the Communion of Churches that ARE the Church to have AUTHORITARIAN RULE OVER any other Church. The rulings of Ecumenical councils Papally signed confirm this. When Churches disagree, they withdraw Communion from each other - Until they can resolve whatever divides them... Or, eg - Expel the heretical members until they repent of their heresy, like the Arians, as an example... So we are authoritative, but not authoritarian, because we do not have the heretical belief that we are the Head of the Body of Christ on earth... We are more than happy to obey Christ as the Head of His Own Body - Demonstrated by Christ's words to the Seven Churches in Revelation - and to simply tend to our own local issues, which are many!

Likewise, we tend to regard the entire United States and the West as a vast field in great need of evangelization, so that we are establishing Faith Communities, Churches, throughout the land, starting from scratch... Europe is functionally atheist now, and as well is so heartbreakingly much of the US... The spiritual anchors of the western churches are losing their footing and their holding power... Their children are not going to Church - Regarding themselves often as Christians who believe in Christ and God but not attending Church - The harangue of preachers is not to their taste, nor the authoritarian tone of an authoritarian ecclesiastical Church...

No I think I do have a fair argument and I am worthy enough to point these facts out.

Forgive me... I am but a worthless servant...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Considering you are a Russian Orthodox, are we really supposed to be surprised at this comment. I mean really, should we expect a different view?

I would hope not...

The basic heresy of the Latins is that they regard the "Chair of Peter" to have authority over the Body of Christ, the Ekklesia - eg to RULE OVER Christ's Own Body... From that error, many others have come...

The truth is that Christ is the Head of His Body on earth...

And He did not go through Rome to correct His 7 Churches in Revelation...

Nor the one in Jerusalem on circumcision, Whose Patriarch was not Peter, but Iakovos...

If you wanna be Boss of Christ's Body, you have to be Christ...

Arsenios

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

You do go on to say basically that the EO, the OO, and the RC's have more in common with each other than do the non-Apostolic churches...

The test for Holy Tradition is: "Those beliefs held at all times by all Churches in Communion throughout Christian History." And this because the Faith given once for all to the Saints does not change essentially, and the granting and withdrawal of giving and receiving Holy Communion is the ONLY force among the Ekklesia of God for correcting error...

The Latin Church has innovated a lot of doctrines over the last thousand years of their stepping away from the Communion of the rest of Apostolic Christianity... The EO and OO are FAR more easily resolved than those between the EO/OO and the Latins...

Arsenios

That is true . But we are much father than Evangelical/Protestant believers .

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

I would hope not...

The basic heresy of the Latins is that they regard the "Chair of Peter" to have authority over the Body of Christ, the Ekklesia - eg to RULE OVER Christ's Own Body... From that error, many others have come...

The truth is that Christ is the Head of His Body on earth...

And He did not go through Rome to correct His 7 Churches in Revelation...

Nor the one in Jerusalem on circumcision, Whose Patriarch was not Peter, but Iakovos...

If you wanna be Boss of Christ's Body, you have to be Christ...

Arsenios

I believe Rome can bring unity to the Orthodox . I believe there has been great progress in relations .

As I saw it The latest Orthodox Council did not create unity but division where 3 members did not show up . The rest developed some points what the Other 3 consider objectionable . What is your take on it ?

Should I be addressing you as Father

 

[Albion]

That is true . But we are much father than Evangelical/Protestant believers .

Than which of them?

Obviously, a single denomination, such as the Roman Catholic Church, is going to seem to be more unified than dozens of other, separate, denominations taken as a whole just for the sake of the comparison.

If we were to compare, say, the Church of the Nazarene with the Catholic churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholic, and some others) it would look as though the Church of the Nazarene were the standard of unity and the Catholic churches as terribly disunited.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

All sounds nice . How long did it take you to write this all this out . I would have to write a book to answer you back, so I will suggest one Catholicism and fundamentalism by Karl Keating . It answers all the objections and accusations you have made , I mean all of them . Dare you to read it . Have you read any of the Church Fathers/council documents . Again I can give you the quotes from them which support Catholic ( and Orthodox )interpretation of scripture it would take me a lifetime to write out . It wouldn't take you long to read them , which I have done . Or Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church . I am sure you have not done this and are using tidbit quotes from books without reading the full context of the book .

All your blather is a poor excuse for an argument. And no, Keating and his kin do not refute all the objections i made, which is why no other RCs have either, despite my frequent posting of them.

To see how you opponent actually defends itself is my challenge to you to do read out of your comfort zone I can actually see your are misusing our apologetic books and/or other documents unfairly .

Comfort zone?! This what we call a bare unsubstantiated "spit wad" in debate, which means the one who resorted to it is has no argument, which is exactly your case. By the grace of God I have been debating Catholics almost steadily for over 10 years, and am a former weekly mass-going RC, and a former CCC teacher and lector, and who often seems to know too much about the RCC for opponents to handle.

I would like to debate the likes of Staples and Keating et. al right now, and but it is very unlikely they would show up here, while their arguments are often what have been refuted for years.

There are some things you have written which Catholics would agree with .

Indeed.

It would take me a lifetime to answer you back

Meaning you have not been able to.

. But I could give each comment opinion, accusation you have given reasonable response . Overwhelming an opponent with info seems unfair .

That's only a part, but I simply addressed some of the typical beliefs Catholics end up posting, and showing them my cards saves time rather than doing so piecemeal. You, however, can respond to portions.

By the way send me some books which are anti catholic in nature . It is good to know how your opponent defends itself .

You complain about being overwhelmed but you want me to send you books? In addition, I am not arguing from any particular book of man, but i can show you where to read Scripture.

I am sure you think i am being offensive, but i do not have any personal animosity against the RCC, yet you need to understand that you are defending a elitist self-proclaimed one true church which in the historical past has damned the likes of me while presently disallowing our churches are worth to be called by the proper name "church," while teaching a gospel of entrance into Heaven by actually becoming good enough to be with God, versus obedient contrite faith being counted for righteousness.

Thus if i care about Truth and souls, I should not be silent in the face of provocative Catholic claims and the damming deceptions multitudes believe in.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Orthodox do share the same understanding of the seven sacraments and would defend our understanding from scripture,the early Councils and the Early Church Fathers . What I am trying to point out That the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox will defend the 7 sacraments using the same scriptures I would . You are correct when you say there are real differences also especially after separation occurred . Our Churches were not divided at one time and we were the only Church to interpret scripture . Now it is true we there were individuals who deviated from this and stated other movements such as the Gnostics , Arians which sowed discord in the early church which resulted in Councils to combat these heresies . But during the 4 centuries there was a understanding/belief of the seven sacraments Baptism, confession, the eucharist..which we held together . Until the first schism with the Oriental Orthodox and latter in in 1024 with the Eastern Orthodox. In understanding this we can see the early church held to certain beliefs in common which Evangelicals don't hold to . Even the Early reformers held closer views to the Catholic Church ( eg infant baptism as a sacrament , the presence of the lord in the Eucharist = Lutheran , infant baptism = presbyterian ) . The further away you get the more we do not share in common .

You are missing the point, which is that if you are going to invoke unity as evidence of validity then you must deal with your own divisions. And which is not simply those with the Orthodox, but the amalgam of variegated beliefs in your own church, which she implicitly sanctions. I can ask you questions about your own beliefs which could reveal that.

This is important to understand , because you are not just denying Catholic belief but you will also have to deny Orthodox beliefs

.
True, meaning what is important to understand is that the NT is not just denying certain Catholic belief but also to certain Orthodox beliefs. Where would you like to start?

You are in fact saying that the NT church is now the evangelical church and only evangelicals understand scripture like the NT church .

No, that is not what I said, and putting words in my mouth will not help you. The only "one true church" is the church that was purchased with the sinless blood of Christ, (Acts 20:28) this being the general body of Christ, to which He is married, and is the "household of faith," (Gal. 6:10) for it alone always and only consists 100% of believers (there are even a few RCs in it).

Thus it cannot refer to any one particular visible organic church/denomination, which inevitably become amalgams of wheat and tares, with both expressing their faith in such.

I know of no particular visible organic church/denomination that has the purity, power and passion of the prima NT church, under matchless manifest apostles of God, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)

But as a former RCs who, while being a weekly Mass-going RC, became truly born again thru personal deep contrite repentance and faith, and realized its profound basic changes in heart and life, and even remained a active weekly RC for 6 years, looking for fellowship with those who had realizd what i did;

then I can say that the evangelicals are overall the closest to the faith and fellowship of the Spirit of the NT church, whether it be Calvary Chapel types to conservative Baptists or Pentecostals. We certainly can disagree on things, but the unity we have centered on the person of Christ due to a shared conversion and the Scriptures as His living word is greater than our divisions. Which on street-level are usually more due to culture than doctrine.

However, this is not with all or even most, as it is a historical norm that a relative remnant shall be saved, while the prophesied latter day falling away (2Thes. 2) is increasingly seen.

The problem which you seem to deny is that each evangelical/protestant church interprets scripture differently.

I never said that, but said and showed that you all in Catholicism (not just Roman) also interpret scripture, tradition and even church teaching differently, with the difference being in scope and depth.

But that Scripture-esteeming, evangelical-types testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs versus Catholics.

Truth requires more than saying no church has exclusivity to truth .

Indeed, and it requires more than saying your church has exclusivity to truth via the correct interpretation of scripture, tradition and history.

I believe Jesus founded only one Church with the the only correct interpretation of scripture. The Orthodox calm this ,the Catholic Church claims this .

Which is what every cult says.

and each protestant church does also even if you don't want to admit it .

Why must you resort to unsubstantiated assertions? Go find me a church that claims that it alone possess the only correct interpretation of scripture in faith and morals and i will show you a cult. And or Rome.

I believe that scripture and the early Church Fathers points to the Church of Rome .

What you merely believe simply does not make it true.

I also believe each church will manipulate scripture and the early Church Fathers to deny that the Church of Rome is the true church, just as you will accuse me of doing . ( I believe the scriptures and Church Fathers are clear )

And what Catholics typically do is believe what scripture says as understood by the overall sparse selective writings of some so-called church "fathers" (which they were not) says as chosen by Rome. Unless you believe the CFs were infallible then your basis for assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of Roman ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. You do not believe in the Assumption on the weight of what early Church Fathers testified concerning it do you, but instead your assurance rests upon Rome having declared it to be so. At least that is what Keating said.

I would have to show you what scripture says or what the Church fathers have said abou Rome and the Papacy to prove my point and of course you would counteract it .

Since the ECFs were not wholly inspired of God or infallible, thus would have to show you what Scripture says about Rome and the Papacy to prove your point, and which judge the ECFs.

But of course I would normally counteract if contrary to the weight of what we see in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), Acts - Rev.

 

[Mike Alexander]

The basic heresy of the Latins is that they regard the "Chair of Peter" to have authority over the Body of Christ, the Ekklesia - eg to RULE OVER Christ's Own Body... From that error, many others have come...

The Bishop of Rome or Pope is the visible head of the Church. Christ is the Head.

And He did not go through Rome to correct His 7 Churches in Revelation..

I'm not familiar with this requirement. Is this an Orthodox requirement only?

Nor the one in Jerusalem on circumcision, Whose Patriarch was not Peter, but Iakovos

Doesn't really matter? It has to do with Peter
So if James happemed to be the first pope I doubt you would be ok with it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

True...
There used to be UNITY of belief, for the Western Church was the most persecuted Church after Constantinople became the New Rome... The Council acclaimed the Tome of Leo, for instance, in 451, concerning the single Person of Christ which had two natures... We both still do hold this tenet as dogma, and in non-Apostolic churches, it is still up for debate as is every single word of the Bible, because each person is burdened with figuring out for himself the meaning of every sentence in the Bible.

Sounds like you are posting the same propaganda s papal polemicists. While it may be convenient to make critical distinctions btwn your church and the EOs and OOs, but lump all so-called non-Apostolic churches together, this is a fallacy since there exists critical distinctions btwn them, including the charge you decided to pin on them all. In my 30+ years as an evangelical, I have never been taught (whether as part of a Fundamental or S. Baptist or Pentecostal church) that any of the fundamentals was for debate (indeed, it was due to a common contention for such that the modern evangelical moments began), nor that every single word of the Bible was also, because each person is burdened with figuring out for himself the meaning of every sentence in the Bible.

Instead, those who did not believe in core Truths (and usually then some) were not going to feel much at home, and were not going to go anywhere in ministry, and usually those who made such aberrant views known were going to get a talking to. However, it was expected that we do as the noble Bereans did, and search the Scriptures whether such things as were preached was Scriptural.

Meanwhile Traditional Catholics search their own historical teaching to ascertain the validity of modern church teaching, like as we look to he only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) For we should , want to conform to what the most ancient church manifestly believed as seen in Acts thru Rev.

The alternative is implicit trust in leadership. But perhaps you feel that since this typically results in disunity, then the flock should simply follow those who occupy the historical office of leadership.

And this because the Bible and everyone's individual interpretation of it is their cornerstone. Persuasion and proofs from Biblical texts for the basis of each individual's private interpretation of Scripture which is seen as essential for Salvation...

So you think examining what is taught by the most reliable record, and with veracity resting upon the evidential weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, is wrong?

The Catholic view, EO, OO and Latin, all hold that repentance from sin, not study of the Bible, is the core of Christian life, and that in that life, God gives Life...

I see. So according to this statement its either repentance from sin or study of the Bible as the core, with the latter not effecting the former.

And that to this end, God gave His Son, and discipled His Disciples to evangellize the Earth in works of Power founding the Churches and the Mysteries therein which give to fallen man healing from sins and the Medicines of Immortality...

I see. So the Son of God did not actually establish His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, but instead the Scriptures were basically superfluous, while the people knew and would know what to repent from and believe because oral tradition was the proven means of transcendent historical preservation of the word of God, and not writing. Answer clearly.

We believe the Nicene Creed's words when we confess: "And I believe in one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church..."

Which uniquely refers to which church? And excludes the others from being Christian?

We BELIEVE IN the Church, you see... The Latins believed in the power of the Church and in their Papal Jurisdiction OVER the worldly Church, and in this they have wandered far from the Truth...

And their feeling is mutual.

But their children of the Reformation, believe in themselves privately interpreting Holy Writ, thereby swallowing the camel while straining the gnats of endless interpretations of doctrines based on their reading of the Bible...

I see. And just where is "privately interpreting Holy Writ" as in examination of what is taught by Scripture, and disagreeing with leadership when it is not, necessarily wrong?

I read the Bible as a non-Christian [or so I thought at the time - God eventually corrected me], and with no preconceptions at all, I can tell you, the one thing I knew for certain was that I needed someone to explain what I waas reading.

And it is quite obvious that you also need someone to teach you what those you attack actually believe, which is not that we do not need teachers or are not to teach.

I read about the Ethiopian Eunuch and that was me...

But here it was study of the Bible" - or at least from one of the writings that was established as Scripture - that was used to bring conversion.

So as to doctrine, what I loved about the EOs was that they had no changes in doctrines from the beginnings, and had 2 thousand years to get it all ironed out.

..
Wow. Catholics almost claim that same thing, but not that they have everything all all ironed out, which I am sure even the NT church did not. However,

And with that, I could concentrate on the practice of living a Christian Life in Christ in repentance from sin by means of confession, Baptism, Church Services, Anointing, receiving the Holy Mysteries, and in a prayer community [Parish] in which we live in intercessory prayer for each other and raise our children and live lives pleasing to God..

.
I see. So like RCs are sppsd to believe, you so much believe in the veracity of your church, since they are the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture, Tradition and history, that you no longer need to prove all things, for nothing from Scripture could be contrary to it, or fail to support what she believes. And thus dissent from her is dissent from God?

As for me, I cannot even find one single prayer by anyone (except pagans) on earth praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord. Despite prayer being such a common basic practice that there are over 200 prayers in Scripture, and despite there being plenty of occasions in Scripture when this would be fitting, and despite there always being plenty of created beings in Heaven to pray to.

 

[Arsenios]

I believe Rome can bring unity to the Orthodox .

We have union via Communion...

I believe there has been great progress in relations .

I love every Catholic I know...

As I saw it The latest Orthodox Council did not create unity but division where 3 members did not show up .

Yes... For various reasons...

The rest developed some points that the Other 3 consider objectionable .

I heard that the developers considered the other three SO objectionable that at least one of the three had to barricate his hotel doors with furniture to keep them out...

What is your take on it ?

Whatever Hierotheos does should be good with me...

Should I be addressing you as Father

I prefer Grand-pa...

I am not a priest...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The Bishop of Rome or Pope is the visible head of the Church. Christ is the Head.

Canon rejects this view... The Head of the Church is Christ -

I'm not familiar with this requirement. Is this an Orthodox requirement only?

Christ gave John a vision in the Spirit which John wrote down as the Book of Revelation.

In that book, He gave John instructions to the Seven Churches of Revelation, to pass on to them...

This is how Christ corrects His Churches...

His "visible head" in this case was St. John the Theologian...

It was not the Pope of Rome...

Doesn't really matter? It has to do with Peter

Well, IF, as you say, Christ appointed Peter as Head of the Church, and the Church in the early days WAS Jerusalem for the most part, then the question of circumcision should have simply been asked of Peter, and he would have given his ruling, and the Roman Rule of Peter to come would perhaps be vindicted... But no, they had a monster discussion, loud and boisterous, and Peter's view eventually prevailed, and the Council of Jerusalem accdlaimed that view, and Iakovos, the Head of the Church in Jerusalem, pronounced the decision... They did not just ask Peter to make the ruling... Instead, they held a Council in Jerusalem to settle the matter, and the matter was settled by the Council, and not by the Chair of Peter... Peter was, instead, a participant in that Council... Iakovos was its leader in charge...

That one Biblical event established Conciliar decision for Church questions as the norm...

So I should think it matters a lot, since Ecumenical Councils and local Councils continued even to this day for the purpose of addressing Ekklesiastical questions...

So if James happemed to be the first pope I doubt you would be ok with it.

I think he was the first in Jerusalem - Why on earth would the Apostles subject themselves to expending their time and energy on administrative issues when so much more was at stake... Indeed, they appointed deacons and presbyters for the running of the Churches, as Scripture also records...

Arsenios