Female ordination

[rturner76]

Evidence?

The Catholic church alone has authority while the Protestant churches do what they want and make stuff up - really?
Saying that we "make stuff up" implies we don't follow God's word in the Bible. Which is extremely close to saying "we're from God, you're not; we are Christians and you're not."

Why then do you see it as a problem that Protestantism changed things?

What I meant was the rules in the Catholic Church were not suitable for people like Luther and Calvin so they made their own churches. Anybody can start a church, they don't even need to be properly ordained. A person can take the Bible and preach whatever he or she wants, it's just not the Roman Catholic way. THat is the way I prefer. It has no bearing on your relationship with God.

As you said earlier that you follow the same Gospel, same God, same Saviour and Spirit as we do, I have news for you, we follow the same religion - Christianity.
Agreed, just different styles.
It may irritate you to realise it, but we (protestants, free church etc) are Christians just as much as you are. Just as loved by God, just as saved, just as much his children. In God's eyes we are the same; there is no such thing as "true church" and "others." We are for him or against him, IN Christ or not, walking in the light or in darkness, have eternal life or not.

Yes you are Christians, just a different kind.

 

[rturner76]

Why then do you see it as a problem that Protestantism changed things?

Jesus gave the keys of the church to St Peter and he said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

That started the chain of Apostolic succession with St Peter, and he passed the keys down the line. The Church can't just change things, there is a long process of writing and debates etc, and the magisterium needs to be on the same page as the Pope so there is a huge system of checks and balances that needs to be adhered to.

What I was talking about was how any random person can open a church and teach what they like calling themselves a Pastor. Who is to know if the person is teaching in error or not? Where does their authority come from? With THe Church, there is an established Apostolic Succession from that statement made by Jesus to today.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would know? But we've discussed Matt 16 and John 6. Then there's Macabees, Tobit, Wisdom, and some others.

Well you were telling me that I was ignoring the Scriptures that I didn't like; I thought you might know which ones they were.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes you are Christians, just a different kind.

Newsflash number 2; there isn't another kind.
Christians belong to Christ, follow Christ, abide in Christ and are like Christ. That's why we are CHRIST-ians and not PAUL-ians or PETER-ians.

 

[zoidar]

What I meant was the rules in the Catholic Church were not suitable for people like Luther and Calvin so they made their own churches. Anybody can start a church, they don't even need to be properly ordained. A person can take the Bible and preach whatever he or she wants, it's just not the Roman Catholic way. THat is the way I prefer. It has no bearing on your relationship with God.

Yes you are Christians, just a different kind.

From what I know Luther never planned to start a new church. He wanted the church to go back to the Bible, since he saw the church had started with unbiblical practices.

 

[Albion]

From what I know Luther never planned to start a new church. He wanted the church to go back to the Bible, since he saw the church had started with unbiblical practices.

True, but he first hoped that the Medieval church would reform itself as regards the few issues he had with it at that time. Later, he and his associates were forced out of that church. Had the church itself not been in a weakened position at that time and not in a mood to show any more weakness by negotiating with this monk, it's possible that the course of events would have been been different.

 

[rturner76]

Newsflash number 2; there isn't another kind.
Christians belong to Christ, follow Christ, abide in Christ and are like Christ. That's why we are CHRIST-ians and not PAUL-ians or PETER-ians.

Got it

 

[rturner76]

From what I know Luther never planned to start a new church. He wanted the church to go back to the Bible, since he saw the church had started with unbiblical practices.

Right, he didn't like it so he changed it.

 

[zoidar]

Right, he didn't like it so he changed it.

He was kind of banned for pointing out things he saw wrong with the church (some things that the RCC have more or less changed today, like the practice of indulgence). So naturally there had to be a new church. Maybe the RCC could have handled it better? Not saying Luther was right about everything.

I'm no historical expert, but just my thoughts.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Um, "truth classes?"

no, 'denial of truth' classes.

That isn't what was just being discussed here, but anyway, most of the Bible books come to us from the pre-Christian Hebrews.

oh, you're writing about when they were written. I'm writing about when they were compiled. Truth is, there were a lot of book floating around, being proposed for inclusion in 'the Bible. And there wasn't even agreement among Jews which were and which weren't Canon.

The early Christians accepted them just as Christ did. Not much of a problem there.

except that there was no unified Canon.

As for the New Testament books, they were, with only several exceptions, accepted and affirmed as inspired by the various congregations of the Christian world in the first several centuries and then, at last, a couple of church councils put their stamp of approval on them. The books, thus assembled, we call "The Bible."

yes. CATHOLIC councils. Which is why we can say that the Catholic Church provided the Bible. In fact, the Jewish Canon was codified after the Catholic Canon.

It was the product of what was (and still is) called "the Undivided Church" because that was prior to the splits that we all know were to occur between the Latin, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some smaller branches of the church.

There was no such division in the 400s. There were heretics and Catholics.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well you were telling me that I was ignoring the Scriptures that I didn't like; I thought you might know which ones they were.

The ones where you don't accept what the writers were trying to convey.

 

[zoidar]

no, 'denial of truth' classes. oh, you're writing about when they were written. I'm writing about when they were compiled. Truth is, there were a lot of book floating around, being proposed for inclusion in 'the Bible. And there wasn't even agreement among Jews which were and which weren't Canon.except that there was no unified Canon. yes. CATHOLIC councils. Which is why we can say that the Catholic Church provided the Bible. In fact, the Jewish Canon was codified after the Catholic Canon.
There was no such division in the 400s. There were heretics and Catholics.

Did they pick all the right books? Missed any book or included some book that wasn't supposed to be there? I know most Christians don't like that thought, but I see it as a posibility.

Sorry for the interruption... go on!

 

[rturner76]

He was kind of banned for pointing out things he saw wrong with the church (some things that the RCC have more or less changed today, like the practice of indulgence). So naturally there had to be a new church. Maybe the RCC could have handled it better? Not saying Luther was right about everything.

I'm no historical expert, but just my thoughts.

Yes the way The Church at the time was dealing in indulgences was greedy. He wanted the money for a new Basilica and let greed and pride take hold. Even as a Catholic I believe Luther was looking after the best interest of The Church but he didn't go about it through the proper channels where he would have likely got shut down. He did a protest that the church didn't accept. He was a great scholar of the Bible.

 

[Albion]

yes. CATHOLIC councils. Which is why we can say that the Catholic Church provided the Bible.

"One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic," perhaps.

There was no such division in the 400s.

Uh...yes, there was.

 

[Fervent]

Did they pick all the right books? Missed any book or included some book that wasn't supposed to be there? I know most Christians don't like that thought, but I see it as a posibility.

Sorry for the interruption... go on!

The canon wasn't exactly selected so much as it was confirmed. The books that were included were included because they had a history of authoritative use. The only books that could possibly have been left out that met all of the characteristics that those approved have in common save possibly 1 are the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Though those were excluded either because they had fallen out of use(the Didache) or apostolic heritage is suspect(Shepherd of Hermas).

 

[Strong in Him]

The ones where you don't accept what the writers were trying to convey.

Well if you think there are any of those, you'll have to quote them, because I can't think of any.

Unless you mean the ones where I disagree with Catholic teaching - like the angel's greeting to Mary being proof that she is queen of heaven. In cases like that I do dispute that that is the "plain meaning" of Scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Newsflash number 2; there isn't another kind.
Christians belong to Christ, follow Christ, abide in Christ and are like Christ. That's why we are CHRIST-ians and not PAUL-ians or PETER-ians.

You don't believe ALL of what Christ taught. You confess to the religion of someone other than Christ, namely, the founder of your denomination. Which is exactly what St. Paul was addressing to the Corinthians. He was speaking against denominationalism.

This is not to say you're not Christian, not in any way. Your denomination reflects Christianity through the lens of your denomination founder.

 

[Root of Jesse]

True, but he first hoped that the Medieval church would reform itself as regards the few issues he had with it at that time. Later, he and his associates were forced out of that church. Had the church itself not been in a weakened position at that time and not in a mood to show any more weakness by negotiating with this monk, it's possible that the course of events would have been been different.

Negotiate with a monk? LOL. Why would the Church negotiate the Truth? Regarding some of the abuses that Luther was trying to address, in his own way, the Church was already in the process of reforming. The Church is always in a process of reforming. The active-ness of that process waxes and wanes, but it is always in process.
For what it's worth, one of the most revered saints of the modern time, St. Padre Pio, was suppressed because the Church was suspicious of his popularity. Rather than try to prove himself, Padre Pio humbled himself and submitted to the Church's decisions, and ultimately was vindicated. I would suggest that Luther might have done the same thing, and kept the Church together.

 

[Root of Jesse]

He was kind of banned for pointing out things he saw wrong with the church (some things that the RCC have more or less changed today, like the practice of indulgence). So naturally there had to be a new church. Maybe the RCC could have handled it better? Not saying Luther was right about everything.

I'm no historical expert, but just my thoughts.

Regarding indulgences, you're right and wrong. The Church never permitted the sale of indulgences. (That's where you're wrong-there's been no reform of indulgences.) There were people, officials of the Church, who insinuated to people that they could gain indulgences by giving money to the Church to fund St. Peter's. They were wrong, and the Church has made it understood to all what is and isn't an indulgence.
Certainly the Church and Luther could have handled things better. The truth is the Church was already in a major reform.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Did they pick all the right books? Missed any book or included some book that wasn't supposed to be there? I know most Christians don't like that thought, but I see it as a posibility.

Sorry for the interruption... go on!

If you believe what Jesus told the apostles, that he would send an advocate to guide the Church in all Truth, then you would know that the Canon is the Canon, and cannot be changed. You also would want to know the rationale for choosing what were chosen. Mainly, they chose what was used in liturgy.