A Question to all the Non Protestant High Churches

[Dave L]

What we see in Scripture is Paul setting someone up as a leader of a new community, ekklesia, such as Timothy or Titus. As communities grew and expanded in to new areas, those leaders would set up someone as a leader, or in Biblical terms, episkopos, in English, Bishop. It prevented, at least in theory, someone who was not recognized as a legitimate bishop from exercising authority over a congregation. Since Christianity spread in urban centers, a distinction grew between the episkopos and presbyter, where we get our terms of bishop and priest in English. The bishop was the recognized leader in that city while priests worked under his authority.

As for franchise Christianity, for a fee you can get "ordained" by a group of bishops that are not attached to any canonical church. So you'll see these weird designations of "ordained by Bp. X of the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church of North Central Kentucky, Bp. Y of the Orthodox Catholic Holy Apostolic Church of Alabama, and Bp. Z of the Catholic Orthodox Eastern Apostolic Church of Holy Newark NJ." or some mumbo-jumbo like that. The most infamous is Dr. Chief Alexander Swift Eagle Justice and claims to be Metropolitan of the Imperial Holy Orthodox Synod of the Holy Orthodox Church of All Russia and Appointed Chief Patriarch for United States - California, Mexico and for All Latin American Countries aka Bishop Draperod

Originally Elder, Pastor, and bishop are the same person. Nothing exists in the NT to support the Institutional church structure. It's man-made and similar to the strange fire of adding to God's word.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Originally Elder, Pastor, and bishop are the same person. Nothing exists in the NT to support the Institutional church structure. It's man-made and similar to the strange fire of adding to God's word.

Which is where the congregational church structure originates. The question is how do individual congregations recognize each other as being doctrinally the same? With the episcopal structure, which is the historical method as Christianity expanded in the first century. Remember, until the 3-4th centuries, there was no unified New Testament. So one congregation might have 3 Gospels, a handful of Paul's letters, and maybe a couple of other documents say from Clement or Barnabus. They relied on word of mouth and a recognition of "did your priest/bishop/elder receive their training from someone taught to one of the recognized apostles". If someone came preaching about Christ and the aeons (a Gnostic heresy), how would you know if they were legit or not? No one was handing out copies of the scriptures with Christ's words printed in red in "genuine imitation leather" with zippers.

I'm a psalti (chantor) in the Orthodox church, by Metropolitan Nicholas of Detroit of the Greek Archdiocese and serve under the graces of my priest who serves under Archbishop Elpidophoros. It is through that structure that I can serve as a reader within the church.

 

[Roy Taylor]

parousia70 said:

Try me.
From what I understand about Protestants (having been one once myself) they tend to object to what they THINK Catholics believe and practice, instead of what Catholics ACTAULLY believe and practice.

What do Catholics really believe and practice then since Protestants don't understand?

God Picked you to have more understanding of scripture than "Most Christians"?
Really?

This is what I said:
"Believe me, It is really hard to stop sinning and to stop being a friend of the world. I still struggle every day and fail most of the time. God has given me some understanding of the bible where most Christians don't see it. But as much as I know, I still do what I am not to do and don't really do what I should do. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

If you can see, I said "some understanding". You changed it to "more understanding..." That is kind of what Satan does. Twist the Word a little. Hath God really said? I also said I am far from perfect and have a long way to go. And I never said God picked me. God shows everyone things in scripture, If they read their Bible. Again, twisting what I said.

Like more than Most Christians of all time, or Just more than most alive Now?

I guess alive now. Of only what he showed me. Because I read the whole entire bible over and over again. And am trying my best to put the deeds of my flesh to death. Not trying to be a friend of the world. Not trying to make myself a god and have my kingdom here on earth. I do fail more than I succeed though. I don't have that figured out yet. Letting God have full control of me. But I do have some understanding that most Christians are a friend of the world and have no fear of God. Hardly any are repenting nor aware that the devil is constantly there to deceive people to believe a lie and take them to hell. These things are not preached in church any more because they are not popular with carnal Christians.

Do you think you have more understanding of the scriptures than I do?

I don't know?

I couldn't say until we put it to the test, so, Again, Try me... Because what's weird is that God also gave me, a Catholic, understanding of the scriptures that Most Christians don't see.

I guess this is why 2 Timothy 2:23 says “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”

Which one of us do you think God gave more understanding of the scriptures to?
My Money is on me, the Catholic.

Wow! Get behind me Satan! Sounds like you have a bit of an ego. Didn't mean to hurt your pride. Where did that spirit come from? Wow. Is that a jealousy? Have to make a show of me? Doesn't sound like a humble Spirit. [/QUOTE]

 

[Dave L]

Which is where the congregational church structure originates. The question is how do individual congregations recognize each other as being doctrinally the same? With the episcopal structure, which is the historical method as Christianity expanded in the first century. Remember, until the 3-4th centuries, there was no unified New Testament. So one congregation might have 3 Gospels, a handful of Paul's letters, and maybe a couple of other documents say from Clement or Barnabus. They relied on word of mouth and a recognition of "did your priest/bishop/elder receive their training from someone taught to one of the recognized apostles". If someone came preaching about Christ and the aeons (a Gnostic heresy), how would you know if they were legit or not? No one was handing out copies of the scriptures with Christ's words printed in red in "genuine imitation leather" with zippers.

I'm a psalti (chantor) in the Orthodox church, by Metropolitan Nicholas of Detroit of the Greek Archdiocese and serve under the graces of my priest who serves under Archbishop Elpidophoros. It is through that structure that I can serve as a reader within the church.

Why add to God's word to justify any man-made invention? Prove it from scripture. Then you can have faith in it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are Mistaken
A Guide to Catholic Baptism - About Catholics.
Does the Catholic Church accept baptisms from another church?
Yes, the Catholic Church recognizes any baptism that uses water and in which the person baptized was baptized with the Trinitarian formula.

Thank you I stand corrected I had received incorrect information from other Catholics in the past. I have seen this several times so I’ll be sure to quote the Catechism on this matter the next time I see a conversation concerning this matter. God bless.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I just wrote that for the first few centuries of Christianity, there was no uniformly recognized NT. I suppose you could go with the heretic Marcion of Sinope in the 140s with only a edited version of Luke, and Paul's general epistles. THAT would have been your ENTIRE Scripture. Nothing else, no OT, no Matthew, Mark or John, nothing else.

 

[BNR32FAN]

WRONG. Encyclopedia Britanica.com I presume?

No I got bad information from other Catholics.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

No I got bad information from other Catholics.

Don't worry, every organization has a few folks who misunderstand or have bad information. Worse are the ones who don't like anyone outside of their little clique.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Don't worry, every organization has a few folks who misunderstand or have bad information. Worse are the ones who don't like anyone outside of their little clique.

I’m relieved to see that this was a false statement by these people and that the church does recognize baptisms from other churches if done according to the Trinitarian method which I agree should be the proper method used.

 

[Magnanimity]

I have seen this several times so I’ll be sure to quote the Catechism on this matter the next time I see a conversation concerning this matter.

That's a good idea. I just want to note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) makes no claims for itself beyond being a very reliable guide to Catholic faith, morals, life and practice. The Catholic church, for example, doesn't claim infallibility for the CCC. In fact, Pope Francis recently revised and edited the section of the CCC on capital punishment. It's a generally reliable guide, much preferred to hearsay, of course. But, Catholics and other Christians in good conscience can take exception to the wording one finds here and there within the CCC.

Very reliable. Not infallible. Why? Because aggiornamento and the development of doctrine are real phenomena. They both have happened in the Church's past and continue to happen into the Church's now.

 

[BobRyan]

I’m relieved to see that this was a false statement by these people and that the church does recognize baptisms from other churches if done according to the Trinitarian method which I agree should be the proper method used.

A lot of us would agree with that point.

You are Mistaken
A Guide to Catholic Baptism - About Catholics.
Does the Catholic Church accept baptisms from another church?
Yes, the Catholic Church recognizes any baptism that uses water and in which the person baptized was baptized with the Trinitarian formula.

After Vatican II.

=============quote
Is There Really “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?”

"The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the truth of the matter succinctly in paragraphs 846-848, but I would recommend backing up to CCC 830 for a context that will help in understanding these three essential points concerning this teaching:

1. There is no salvation apart from Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Again, this is an infallible teaching and not up for debate among Catholics.
2. Those who are “invincibly” ignorant concerning the truth of #1 above will not be culpable for this lack of knowledge before God.
3. Those in the category of #2 have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or his Church.

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (CCC here quotes The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 14, from the documents of Vatican II).

============end quote

New Quote

==================
from Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible

In moral theology, ignorance is defined as a lack of knowledge that a person ought to have. Ignorance is distinguished from mere nescience, which is a lack of knowledge that a person has no need of.

Moral theology divides ignorance into a number of categories. The two I will consider here are invincible and vincible. Ignorance is invincible if it a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources."
============================ end quote

 

[Roy Taylor]

The RCC have never worshipped the saints or Mary that’s a fabrication. I’m not familiar with any worshipping of angels, that’s a new one I’ve never heard of.

I think someone in this post said they pray to Mary. I heard they pray to saints and angels too. I don't see anywhere in the bible that we are to pray to anyone other than God or Jesus. I might have worded it wrong above about worship. My wife was catholic before I met her and maybe I heard her say that.

You forgot a really big one which is their doctrine of purgatory. The teaching that Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t pay for all our sins and we must pay for them in the afterlife unless your loved ones pays the church money then they will have the priests pray for you so that you may be removed from purgatory and allowed to enter heaven.

Yeah you are right! I forgot about that one. Thanks for reminding me. I'm sure there is more.

 

[Magnanimity]

After Vatican II.

=============quote
Is There Really “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?”

"The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly.

Speaking of qualifying things, I also feel compelled to note that catholic.com is a site run by the very conservative apostolate called "Catholic Answers" (CA). They do some good work. But they are very conservative and can come across as formulaic in their explanations of things--like they do here with regard to salvation and "invincible ignorance." Some folks will find such formulaic approaches helpful. Others will roll their eyes at it.

The Catholic church is a massive religious tent, and it includes CA. But, it also includes the Catholic church's most prominent theologians of the last hundred years, all of whom were either explicit universalists (Karl Rahner) or at least were amenable to universal salvation (De Lubac and Von Balthasar).

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of qualifying things, I also feel compelled to note that catholic.com is a site run by the very conservative apostolate called "Catholic Answers" (CA). They do some good work. But they are very conservative and can come across as formulaic in their explanations of things-

They provide direct quotes from the catechism for their statements - the question of whether the reader considers the statements in the catechism to be in support of that very conservative Catholic source.


=============== another Catholic source said this regarding changes made at Vatican II
What changed at Vatican II

"- Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio declared the ecumenical movement a good thing, encouraged Catholics to be part of it and referred to Eastern, Oriental and Protestant Christians as "separated brethren." In 1928 Pope Pius XI had condemned the ecumenical movement. From the Council of Trent until the Second Vatican Council Protestants were officially referred to as heretics."

 

[BNR32FAN]

more Britanica.com nonsense? This statement is so wrong.

Which part? That the church teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t pay for our sins or that the church accepts money in return for indulgences?

1031. "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. [Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire. [Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. [St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:32-36.]"


1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. [Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"

 

[BNR32FAN]

In fairness to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the "bound for Hell" stuff is passé. Contemporary Orthodoxy and Catholicism abound with high-profile universalists (or at least those open to the plausibility of universalism). I'm happy to supply names..



No, in section 16 of the Vatican 2 document Lumen Gentium there is a fundamental reorienting of this teaching completely. It explicitly admits that persons outside of the church can be saved, even those of no particular religion at all who are following the dictates of conscience.

Where can I find this? Is it in the catechism?

 

[Albion]

In fairness to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the "bound for Hell" stuff is passé. Contemporary Orthodoxy and Catholicism abound with high-profile universalists (or at least those open to the plausibility of universalism). I'm happy to supply names..

That's right. Sort of.

For one thing, I wasn't talking about Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, both of which still hold to that idea of there being only one true church--theirs. You quoted me making a reference to Anglicanism, but Anglicans don't do that. And Universalism has nothing to do with it in any case. Not with Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Anglicans.

 

[helmut]

Well, for one thing we predate the Protestant churches by about 1500 years. The Protestant Churches didn't even begin to exist for one and a half millennia after Christ.

There was the prostestant ("pre-reformational") movement of the lollards in the 14th century. And the "apostoloc" churches date at most in the 2nd century. This is somewhat more than 1000 years, not 1500 years.

 

[parousia70]

I think someone in this post said they pray to Mary. I heard they pray to saints and angels too. I don't see anywhere in the bible that we are to pray to anyone other than God or Jesus. I might have worded it wrong above about worship. My wife was catholic before I met her and maybe I heard her say that.

1)If I ask you to pray for me does that mean I am praying TO you?

2)Here are some 200 scriptures to consider that directly refute your “I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that says we should pray to eachother”:
BibleGateway - Keyword Search: I pray thee

200 biblical examples of people exporting to other people “I pray thee”....
If the Bible says we should never say to someone else “I pray thee do X for me”
Why do we have 200 scriptural examples of people doing exactly that?

 

[Albion]

1)If I ask you to pray for me does that mean I am praying TO you?

Maybe so, maybe not. However, when the prayers extoll the spiritual powers of the saint in terms that are rightfully reserved for God alone...we have something that any reasonable person can understand to be a form of worship.

Even the church which is best known for devotions to spirits, the RCC, says that there are different kinds of "worship" and attempts to defend the practice of praying to the saints by labelling it as one of those kinds.