The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

Standing Up said:

More like 1965

Second Vatican Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

And GOD is NOT the author of confusion.

Rick Otto said:

Seems far more foolish to literalize selectively. Especially in light of the cannibalistic implication literalization necessitates.

Click to expand...

That was how Jesus' followers understood His words to mean, and many of them stopped following Him on account of this.

If you had more than emotive sentimentality attached to it, you might have a point to argue.

Click to expand...

Sorry Rick, I don't know what you are getting at.

Rhamiel said:

I think it is kind of interesting how so many people in these debates leave out the Oriental Orthodox

there are about 84 million Oriental Orthodox in the world
yes, that is a lot less then the number of EO or RCC world wide
but it is still a good number
outnumbering the Anglican Communion, the Methodist denominations, and the Southern Baptists (but not all Baptists combined)

they also would rank just under Lutherans (if you add all Lutheran groups together)

this is not an insignificant number
they were one of the earliest Churches to go into schism, and because of Islam have been more isolated

they are liturgical, sacramental, hierarchical, and have a deep respect for Mary and the saints

Click to expand...

I am not knowledgable with the OOC, but what was the reason they schismed?

http://www.christianforums.com/f449/
The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox The new forum for Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Christians.

A few things to know about Oriental Orthodox Christians:

1. <LI abp="413">The Oriental Orthodox Church is made up of the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Indian (two churches), Ethiopian, and Eritrean churches.
   
2. The Orthodox confess the same faith as the ancient Church - the faith as was later formulated in the fourth century in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. We do not, however, accept the Council of Chalcedon or any subsequent one.

To learn more about what we believe please see

An Introduction to the Oriental Orthodox Churches


The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, and Indian Orthodox Churches--collectively referred to as the Oriental Orthodox Churches--are heirs to some of the richest and most ancient traditions in the Christian world. Today they are estimated to have as many as 50 million members worldwide, including significant diaspora populations (Roberson). Nonetheless, they remain relatively unknown in the West, where the study of church history has traditionally focused on Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and to a lesser degree Eastern Orthodoxy.

Each of the six churches traces its origins to apostolic missions of the first century. Saints Thaddeus and Bartholomew are believed to have been martyred in Armenia; St. Mark is referred to as the first bishop of Alexandria; St. Philip is said to have baptized an Ethiopian pilgrim, who returned home to spread the faith in African lands south of Egypt; Antioch is mentioned in the book of Acts as the place where the term “Christian” was first used; and St. Thomas is believed to have been martyred in South India. While some of these claims are debated by scholars, the establishment of Christianity in these lands certainly dates to the earliest centuries of the Christian era....................



.

By Faith Alone said:

And GOD is NOT the author of confusion.

Click to expand...

Confusion can also lead to instability and tumults, which is actually what that greek word means, since Peace is the opposite of that....IMHO.

Greek Lexicon :: G181 (YLT)

1 Corinthians 14:33
for not is of tulmuts/akatastasiaV <181> the God, but of Peace, as in all the Outcalleds of the Saints.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

Luke 21:9
Whenever yet ye should be hearing battles and tumults/akatastasiaV <181> no be being dismayed
for is binding these to be becoming, but not immediately the End

181. akatastasia ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah from 182; instability, i.e. disorder:--commotion, confusion, tumult.
182. akatastatos ak-at-as'-tat-os from 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of 2525; inconstant:--unstable.



.

prodromos said:

That was how Jesus' followers understood His words to mean, and many of them stopped following Him on account of this.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there's a lot that's quite weak with that line of analysis we've heard before. For one, the way these few 'followers' took Jesus' words doesn't prove anything about what he had actually meant by his words.

bbbbbbb said:

That depends on how you define the Church. If, as I assume, you mean your denomination, that statement is rather silly. In the first century there is not a scintille of evidence for the office of the papacy, much less the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Click to expand...

It doesn't depend on how I define (or you, for that matter) a the Church. It depends on how Christ defined the Church.

Acts 15 is proof of papal infallibility.

MoreCoffee said:

The Lord is God and he can be in every place at one time without any dragging of any kind. Being God makes him more than anything or anybody born of Adam's race, Christ alone excepted.

Click to expand...

You know what's REALLY strange? Folks don't get the symbolism of God being laid in a manger, as if He is food for mankind...and then the Bread of Life discourse, and then the Passover meal...

Root of Jesse said:

It doesn't depend on how I define (or you, for that matter) a the Church. It depends on how Christ defined the Church.

Acts 15 is proof of papal infallibility.

Click to expand...

If it actually was, you'd think someone would have noticed it during the first 1840 or so years of church history.

Standing Up said:

Discussion board. I accurately represented RC doctrine, seeing as how I quoted RC catechism.

But tell us whether you agree with RC catechism?

Click to expand...

Technically, what you presented might have been accurate (if you cut and pasted it from an approved source), but what you did was mis-re-present what it means.

Standing Up said:

By this time at GT, everyone knows this is simply not true. Ask any EO or OO or P.

On scripture, see Heb 1 or Peter. Prophets (OT) and apostles (NT). This scriptural idea is also found in Maccabees itself (it calls itself uninspired), Josephus, and Muratorium Fragment.

Click to expand...

Why does an y EO or OO or P, with all due respect, have any say? I don't try to tell you what you believe. Why do you try to tell me what we believe?

concretecamper said:

Why would one expect that the DNA of the consecrated bread and wine be different than what they appear to be?

Click to expand...

I always like to ask...Did Jesus look like God when he walked among us? The answer is, no, so why would we think that bread has to be bread and wine has to be wine?

By Faith Alone said:

This is my body.

This is my blood.

I am the door.

I am the true vine.

All flesh is grass.

You are the salt of the earth.

Much to do about...METAPHORS.

Click to expand...

Except, Jesus didn't say "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door...I am the true vine, you are the salt of the earth."

He did say "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you." Another way of interpreting the first 6 words of this: "Listen up. I'm speaking directly..." In fact, in one Protestant audio bible, the reader says "Listen, I tell you the truth..." It's not metaphors...

bbbbbbb said:

What I do know is that when I was young, growing up in an extremely Catholic city, all of my Catholic friends were quite insistent that at a Catholic mass, the priest said the magic words in Latin, the bells chimed, and the bread became the flesh of Jesus Christ and the wine became the very blood of Jesus Christ. They did not believe that the "accidents" remained unchanged.

Click to expand...

Back then, most of them didn't even pay attention. They prayed their rosaries, while the priest was celebrating the Mass. They only looked up when the bell rang...

Originally Posted by bbbbbbb

That depends on how you define the Church. If, as I assume, you mean your denomination, that statement is rather silly. In the first century there is not a scintille of evidence for the office of the papacy, much less the doctrine of papal infallibility.
​

Click to expand...

Root of Jesse said:

It doesn't depend on how I define (or you, for that matter) a the Church. It depends on how Christ defined the Church.

Acts 15 is proof of papal infallibility.

Click to expand...

First I have heard of that.

Albion said:

If it actually was, you'd think someone would have noticed it during the first 1840 or so years of church history.

Click to expand...

Now THAT would make for a very interesting discussion thread!

Proof and Reason for the Papal Office - About Catholics

*snip*

Now you might be saying, “where does the pope play into all of this?” Well, the popes are Christ’s vicars, the visible and earthly heads of Christ’s Church while Christ is the invisible and supreme head. Read Acts 15.

This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final.

Some may claim that Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter, was the head of the Church. Since James the Lesser (not James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they conclude that James must be the head of the Church.

All I can do is tell those people to read the Gospels, where St. Peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the Apostles, whereas James the Lesser is not.



.

By Faith Alone said:

EWTN to the children in a cartoon.

"The priest has the power to turn the bread and wine into flesh and blood".

Smacks of witchcraft if you ask me. But since you did not ask, I will not say it.

Click to expand...

If you were describing it to children so that they could grasp what was being said, how would you say it?

BobRyan said:

Indeed metaphors taken too literally leads to some pretty strange stuff.

But in the case of this thread the problem getting the RCC to exist in the first century is that they don't have RCC doctrine in the first century.


Which brings us to this post #123

So then where is the first century evidence for the RCC's doctrines?





Nowhere.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

Everything, except God, evolves over time.

bbbbbbb said:

I think the reality of the situation was that they failed to grasp the nuances of the doctrine of transubstantiation. As you know, most non-Catholics struggle to properly understand the doctrine. Even today a clost friend of mine who is a devout Catholic and teaches the children in his parish, has told me that he cannot explain transubstantiation, but firmly believes that the bread "really and truly becomes the flesh of Jesus Christ and the wine really and truly becomes the blood of Jesus Christ". His words, not mine.

As I say, if Catholics have difficulty comprehending the doctrine, what are we poor Protestants to do?

Click to expand...

Nobody can explain it. It is a miracle. We don't even try to explain it. We just believe that it happens like Jesus said it does.

LittleLambofJesus said:

Now you might be saying, “where does the pope play into all of this?” Well, the popes are Christ’s vicars, the visible and earthly heads of Christ’s Church while Christ is the invisible and supreme head. Read Acts 15.

This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final.

Click to expand...

"Obviously" it does no such thing. It is more likely that Peter, who was certainly one of the most important of the Twelve, merely gave the most compelling argument among those assembled. To suppose that this means he was thought by them to be infallible, a universal ruler of the church, or that men living thousands of years after Peter had inherited some of his authority is ridiculous...obviously.

Some may claim that Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter, was the head of the Church. Since James the Lesser (not James, the brother of John) gives the concluding remarks at the council of Jerusalem and also recommends some marriage and dietary regulations for the Gentiles, they conclude that James must be the head of the Church.

Click to expand...

It's probably more reasonable than the Peter theory. After all, if the Papal Church were saying that it descends from James, the arguments would be that
James had convened the council, so that shows him to be the leader.

BobRyan said:

The RCC had many stories and legends in the dark ages. nothing changes.

They have bleeding statues - crying statues - oil generating statues.
Does that prove that the statues became olive trees, humans?

The egyptian magicians toss down their staff along with Moses' staff and all of them appear to become snakes.

The question is not what new trick can the devil do - the question is "What does the Bible say".

In the Bible "no bread is bleeding"

In the bible "no statues are bleeding or crying ".

In the Bible the doctrine of the church is stated without promoting any of the RCC distinctives which is a problem for the claim that the RCC even existed at all in the first century.

in Christ,

Bob

Click to expand...

Can you name one of these that the Catholic Church has defined as a miracle or holy place, to be venerated by the entire church?
In the case of Lanciano, the priest was doubting the Real Presence, and asked for a sign. What we have remaining is that the consecrated bread that was in the monstrance became flesh. This isn't Jesus' face in a piece of toast, or a statue of Mary crying blood, or dripping oil.

It's also not necessary for our faith to believe in it.

By Faith Alone said:

Sheesh. Would be nice if everybody stuck to the INSPIRED writings.

Click to expand...

Who are you to limit what is called "inspired"? As if God can be limited, even when you wish it!

God speaks in more ways than just written words in the Bible.