{MOVED} Why I am not Roman Catholic

Zao is life · May 9, 2020

Cbowles said:
Wow, did I hear you right? Did you say believers who only hold their faith with no accountability.

Every individual believer in Christ is accountable first to Christ and second to his brothers - but not if his brothers hold him accountable to their heresies and lies.

Zao is life · May 9, 2020

Michie said:
Like other excommunications, anathemas didn’t do anything to a person’s soul. It didn’t make him “damned by God” or anything like that. The only man who can make a man damned by God is the man himself. The Church has no such power. An anathema was a formal way of signaling him that he had done something gravely wrong, that he had endangered his own soul, and that he needed to repent. Anathemas, like other excommunications, were thus medicinal penalties, designed to promote healing and reconciliation.

Also like (many) excommunications, anathemas were not automatic. Just because someone, somewhere, uttered a heresy, this did not cause the relevant bishop to drop whatever he was doing and automatically perform the ceremony like a puppet on strings. Instead, if someone committed an ecclesiastical crime that was potentially subject to an anathema the matter had to be reported, investigated, judged, and only after that would the ceremony happen—if it did.

Also also like other excommunications, they applied to people who were (or had been) in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no point excommunicating somebody from the Catholic Church who had never been part of the Catholic Church, and so people who had never been Catholics were not anathematized, no matter what they said or did. (This comes as quite a surprise to many in the Protestant community, where it is often—unfortunately—claimed that the Catholic Church anathematizes them for their beliefs. Not so. It may disagree with some of their beliefs; it may hope and pray that they adopt the fullness of the faith as found in the Catholic Church; but it does not anathematize them.)

Over time the penalty of anathema became administered only rarely, and eventually it was judged that the extra ceremony was no longer needed. As a result, the 1983 Code of Canon Law abolished the penalty of anathema, and so it no longer exists under Church law.

This means that nobody today is anathema in the sense that the term is used by councils and canon law documents. Excommunication still exists as a penalty, and some excommunications are even automatic, but the special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as anathema does not.

This does not mean that the canons of the ecumenical councils have lost doctrinal force. They haven’t. Whatever doctrinal force they had prior to the 1983 Code, they still have, and so if a particular canon defined something as a heresy then it still is.

Furthermore, heresy still carries a penalty of excommunication, but a number of conditions have to be fulfilled for the penalty to apply (especially if it is to apply automatically—but that’s a subject for another post).

Are YOU "Anathema"? How about Your Protestant Friend?

Church councils deciding what is heresy and what isn't, is one thing, and the truth of this stuff, as anyone can see, is in the eye of the beholder (like the statement "Those led by the Holy Spirit do not exalt Mary or bow to statues and icons) - but church councils being used to oppress Christ's flock - Christ's sheep - by declaring "anathema" their opposition to things which in their own conscience they regard as anathema to Christ, are bringing those who have done this and those who seek to do this under the judgment of the Almighty.

Michie · May 9, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Church councils deciding what is heresy and what isn't, is one thing, and the truth of this stuff, as anyone can see, is in the eye of the beholder (like the statement "Those led by the Holy Spirit do not exalt Mary or bow to statues and icons) - but church councils being used to oppress Christ's flock - Christ's sheep - by declaring "anathema" their opposition to things which in their own conscience they regard as anathema to Christ, are bringing those who have done this and those who seek to do this under the judgment of the Almighty.

That’s not being oppressed. It’s scriptural. The Church is called to discipline her own. Your objections are ridiculous. As seen on this very thread.

Albion · May 9, 2020

Michie said:
When the councils pronounced holders of a doctrine anathema, it marked a formal excommunication from the Church: nothing more and nothing less.

Nothing less indeed. To be under a pronouncement of anathema was to be excommunicated, literally meaning cut off from the Christian community and the sacraments which, in Catholic theology, did not mean an outright sentence of damnation but did exclude the person from that which the church considered essential to have in order to be saved.

Michie · May 9, 2020

2 Corinthians 6-8

Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.

Titus 2:15
These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.

Revelation 2:2
‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

Matthew 28:15-17
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Titus 1:13
This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith,

Scann · May 9, 2020

Al Masihi said:
Please respond as to why all your fundamentalist churches can’t agree on one single doctrinal issue.

Still trying to divert from the original subject which was you saying that Evangelical Christian pastors keep on "coming up with new revelations." I repeateadly stated so, yet you still want to divert.

Your the one making the claim, You can only guess it was for political purposes, but it’s impossible to conceive that Constantine might have done so out of the kindness of his heart.

You were the one making claims that he was some good emperor so I replied that he wasn't.

Your kidding right? The website I gave is an academic source that quotes sources, it’s not mumbo jumbo you randomly find around the web.

If you want to quote that website I can quote John Cornwell whose book is made up of even more material than that small article of yours. Somehow I cannot quote "mumbo jumbo" but you can quote an atheist.

Jews also celebrate a Winter Solstice which refutes the Winter Solstice is pagan thing, it’s good to know that as a good evangelical Fundamentalist your obsessed with Jews, it wouldn’t surprise me if your also a Zionist. Jews are even farther away than the pagans are, they knew their King, Saviour, and God and rejected him out of hate.

Their winter solstice is not connected to Sol Invictus. And Jews don't celebrate winter solstice because of the sake of celebrating something related to winter. Hanukkah was celebrated around the time when the temple was cleansed from a desecration. Pretty legit reason to celebrate.

But it’s not ok if you celebrate the Winter Solstice in a non pagan way, love the logic here.

What is not ok is taking a pagan festival and turning it into Christmas.

Zao is life · May 9, 2020

Scann said:
Still trying to divert from the original subject which was you saying that Evangelical Christian pastors keep on "coming up with new revelations." I repeateadly stated so, yet you still want to divert.

You were the one making claims that he was some good emperor so I replied that he wasn't.

If you want to quote that website I can quote John Cornwell whose book is made up of even more material than that small article of yours. Somehow I cannot quote "mumbo jumbo" but you can quote an atheist.

Their winter solstice is not connected to Sol Invictus. And Jews don't celebrate winter solstice because of the sake of celebrating something related to winter. Hanukkah was celebrated around the time when the temple was cleansed from a desecration. Pretty legit reason to celebrate.

What is not ok is taking a pagan festival and turning it into Christmas.

They use very clever tactics to try and make you look like you are not qualified to say the things you say. If praying through Mary and exalting her to the point of being a goddess the way they do is acceptable, why don't the Jews do the same for the mother of king David?

Scann · May 9, 2020

Al Masihi said:
That’s literally what the text says:

And when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 5:8

Nothing there justifies praying to a dead person to intervene on your behalf to God.

Your still not addressing the argument.

I'm only answering what you said about the question marks.

Show us where God makes exceptions and gives us scriptural evidence that he sometimes allows the breaking of the commandments, your so stuck in your theology that your willing to says God allowed the breaking of the commandments for a specific time instead of just admitting the obvious. Prophets aren’t given special privileges over the commandments, when David committed adultery God punished him just like everyone else. Also I have no idea how you reconcile your view with the following passages:

If, however, you do not obey the LORD your God by carefully following all His commandments and statutes I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

Deuteronomy 28:15

But if you disobey the LORD and rebel against His command, then the hand of the LORD will be against you as it was against your fathers.

1 Samuel 12:15

"If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to honor My name," says the LORD of Hosts, "I will send a curse among you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already begun to curse them, because you are not taking it to heart.

Malachi 2:2

Either the Second commandment didn’t include the religious use of images or your still stuck with God breaking his own commandments or Moses and Solomon violating these commandments and as we see there can be no exceptions from either God himself or his prophets.

God doesn’t contradict himself or break his own commandments:

I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

Malachi 3:6

God making exceptions doesn't mean He has changed. He is just wise enough to adapt to the situation.

The Apostles were given the authority of Christ, which is even greater than that of the Old Testament prophets who could not pronounce the forgiveness of sins nor could they bind and loose authority on heaven and earth, what Christ gifted to the Apostles is greater than what the Old Testament prophets had.

"The Apostles were given the authority of Christ"

Anthony2019 · May 9, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
If anyone makes me anti-Catholic, you are one of them.

If there is anything that makes me pro-Catholic, then it is people like Michie whose posts make it clear to me that she has a very sincere and committed faith, evidenced by the fact she is very thoughtful and gracious in the way she explains it to others.

Albion · May 9, 2020

Scann said:
"The Apostles were given the authority of Christ"

Yes, but the Bible itself tells us that they commissioned others to do their work also, therefore the idea that the church was to be without ministers upon the deaths of these 12...or that the were to be the only ones serving churches from India to Britain...is not credible.

And if that isn't acceptable, what does it say about the skeptic's view of the authority of Scripture, since we know this FROM Scripture?

Zao is life · May 9, 2020

Anthony2019 said:
If there is anything that makes me pro-Catholic, then it is people like Michie whose posts make it clear to me that she has a very sincere and committed faith, evidenced by the fact she is very thoughtful and gracious in the way she explains it to others.

"Thoughtful and gracious". You mean like accusing someone of being hostile?

Never realized she's a woman. It's taught me to check the icon in future, so thank you.

PaulCyp1 · May 9, 2020

So, you have discovered the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism, which guarantees false teaching in every denomination, yet you resist the one Church Jesus Christ founded, to which He promised "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hear me". Seriously, what more could He have done for you?

ViaCrucis · May 9, 2020

Scann said:
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS” (Matthew 1:24–25)

Roger was a loving husband right up until the day he died.

Does "until" in that sentence mean Roger stopped being a loving husband the day he died? No.

It works that way in English, and more importantly, that's how ἕως works in Greek.

-CryptoLutheran

Zao is life · May 9, 2020

Michie said:
That’s not being oppressed. It’s scriptural. The Church is called to discipline her own. Your objections are ridiculous. As seen on this very thread.

"Your objections are ridiculous. As seen on this very thread"

My objections are ridiculous, eh? I think your objections to what is obviously scriptural are ridiculous.

Hazelelponi · May 9, 2020

Michie said:
That’s not being oppressed. It’s scriptural. The Church is called to discipline her own. Your objections are ridiculous. As seen on this very thread.

I agree with you that casting someone out of the church (membership and assembly) who refuses church discipline for open sin is a responsibility of the church leaders.

I guess the question sometimes is, who should be the one being cast out?

When the heretics have taken over the institution, a split is the only thing God's people can do because we arent to commune (take the sacrament) or assemble with those in open sin.

This has always been the issue with the division between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholics hold they hold the truth, and the Protestants declare they do.

I DO think murdering those declared to be in open sin is perhaps an act that shows the worse sinner of the bunch though, and goes to removing the plank from your own eye before your qualified to remove the speck from your brothers.

So many people refuse to do that...

Zao is life · May 9, 2020

Al Masihi said:
Only George Lamsa isn’t in disagreement with me, your whole position is based on your misunderstanding of Aramaic as being a family of languages and not a single language, something George Lamsa doesn’t deny. Also if I were to show you the actual doctrinal beliefs of George Lamsa you’d immediately toss him out the window as a “pagan.”

You’ve just disapproved the so called Protestant “Reformation” and the so called “Reformers.” The Lord Jesus Christ appointed the people who did those Councils in what is called Apostolic Succesion, since you reject those councils your whole claim of continuity with the early Church falls apart and you have no real claim to Christ or the Apostles.

After implying that I'm a heretic, you're now implying that I'm not Christian. It's amazing the amount of CF rules you feel free to break when you post.

Scann · May 9, 2020

Albion said:
Yes, but the Bible itself tells us that they commissioned others to do their work also, therefore the idea that the church was to be without ministers upon the deaths of these 12...or that the were to be the only ones serving churches from India to Britain...is not credible.

And if that isn't acceptable, what does it say about the skeptic's view of the authority of Scripture, since we know this FROM Scripture?

This is the original conversation.
Scann:I was loling at "Also to answer your last question the Church was given to founded by Christ himself with the authority to bind and loose and the gates of Hell will never prevail against her" which was your answer when I asked if priests were prophets.
Al Masihi:The Apostles were given the authority of Christ, which is even greater than that of the Old Testament prophets who could not pronounce the forgiveness of sins nor could they bind and loose authority on heaven and earth, what Christ gifted to the Apostles is greater than what the Old Testament prophets had.

And the conversation above took place because someone said only God can forgive sins. Which is true. Check Mark 2:7." Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"

Hazelelponi · May 9, 2020

Scann said:
This is the original conversation.
Scann:I was loling at "Also to answer your last question the Church was given to founded by Christ himself with the authority to bind and loose and the gates of Hell will never prevail against her" which was your answer when I asked if priests were prophets.
Al Masihi:The Apostles were given the authority of Christ, which is even greater than that of the Old Testament prophets who could not pronounce the forgiveness of sins nor could they bind and loose authority on heaven and earth, what Christ gifted to the Apostles is greater than what the Old Testament prophets had.

And the conversation above took place because someone said only God can forgive sins. Which is true. Check Mark 2:7." Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?"

I'm confused at the thread of thought.

But the authority of the Christian under Christ has never changed, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ's church...

What Christ gifted to the Apostles is likewise what is gifted to every Christian, although we have different gifts and responsibility within the church.

So all of you confuse me. We are under the New Covenant now...

Scann · May 9, 2020

ViaCrucis said:
Roger was a loving husband right up until the day he died.

Does "until" in that sentence mean Roger stopped being a loving husband the day he died? No.

It works that way in English, and more importantly, that's how ἕως works in Greek.

-CryptoLutheran

Not this word play again. The verse says Joseph "knew" her so whether it was after or until, many times or once ,he still had sex with her.

Scann · May 9, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
I'm confused at the thread of thought.

But the authority of the Christian under Christ has never changed, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against Christ's church...

What Christ gifted to the Apostles is likewise what is gifted to every Christian, although we have different gifts and responsibility within the church.

So all of you confuse me. We are under the New Covenant now...

You've got to ask Mark that. He wrote that only God can forgive sins.

{MOVED} Why I am not Roman Catholic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Pax et bonum!

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

:sighing:

Well-Known Member

Active Member

:sighing:

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads