Are the Roman Catholic Church Biblical?

[Standing Up]

I can translate Greek, what about yourself?

Accepting a baptism by an outside group does not suggest moral equivalency.

It is to say Stephen thought Marcion's and Apelle's baptism caused regeneration (born again) even though they denied having the Spirit, Father, and Christ.

From Firmilian to Cyprian, against Stephen-
"5. But since that messenger sent by you was in haste to return to you, and the winter season was pressing, we replied what we could to your letter. And indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the apostles forbade those who come from heresy to be baptized, and delivered this also to be observed by their successors, you have replied most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently; when even Marcion the disciple of Cerdo is found to have introduced his sacrilegious tradition against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them. Apelles, also consenting to his blasphemy, added many other new and more important matters hostile to faith and truth. But also the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too, after the apostles, and after a long period, rebelled against the Church of God with their wicked lies. It is plain that the other heretics, also, afterwards introduced their evil sects and perverse inventions, even as every one was led by error; all of whom, it is evident, were self-condemned, and have declared against themselves an inevitable sentence before the day of judgment; and he who confirms the baptism of these, what else does he do but adjudge himself with them, and condemn himself, making himself a partaker with such? "
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

PS. I barely know English. But again, at this point, I'd suggest you read the English translations at the source cited. Lots of info for you.

 

[Standing Up]

These are protestant traditions. Where does the bible say these are the defining instances of salvation theology?

Eh? Those are God-breathed scripture quotes. But you're right, I don't put that as equivalent to bishop opinion shown divorced from apostolic tradition (aka scripture).

 

[Second Phoenix]

It is to say Stephen thought Marcion's and Apelle's baptism caused regeneration (born again) even though they denied having the Spirit, Father, and Christ.

Regeneration is a protestant/Calvinist term. Has nothing to do with historical Christianity. All the more, 'regeneratist' don't believe in sacraments, they believe in God pickings and choosing whom to save randomly.

From Firmilian to Cyprian, against Stephen-
"5. But since that messenger sent by you was in haste to return to you, and the winter season was pressing, we replied what we could to your letter. And indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the apostles forbade those who come from heresy to be baptized, and delivered this also to be observed by their successors, you have replied most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently; when even Marcion the disciple of Cerdo is found to have introduced his sacrilegious tradition against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them. Apelles, also consenting to his blasphemy, added many other new and more important matters hostile to faith and truth. But also the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too, after the apostles, and after a long period, rebelled against the Church of God with their wicked lies. It is plain that the other heretics, also, afterwards introduced their evil sects and perverse inventions, even as every one was led by error; all of whom, it is evident, were self-condemned, and have declared against themselves an inevitable sentence before the day of judgment; and he who confirms the baptism of these, what else does he do but adjudge himself with them, and condemn himself, making himself a partaker with such? "
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

PS. I barely know English. But again, at this point, I'd suggest you read the English translations at the source cited. Lots of info for you.

I have. You don't have a point.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Eh? Those are God-breathed scripture quotes. But you're right, I don't put that as equivalent to bishop opinion shown divorced from apostolic tradition (aka scripture).

I agree with scripture, but they don't support your point.

 

[Standing Up]

Regeneration is a protestant/Calvinist term. Has nothing to do with historical Christianity. All the more, 'regeneratist' don't believe in sacraments, they believe in God pickings and choosing whom to save randomly.

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
cccc

I have. You don't have a point.

Like you said, Rome acknowledged with LDS what Firmilian and Cyprian had said long ago about heretical baptisms.

 

[Second Phoenix]

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
ccccp

The Catholic Church is not opposed to the concept of regeneration. However, the term is stressed by radical protestants, most especially those that are Calvinistic.

Like you said, Rome acknowledged with LDS what Firmilian and Cyprian had said long ago about heretical baptisms.

No, the Catholic Church did not acknowledge something created by an institution 1600 years later. Cyprian's views were not accepted by the Catholic Church.

 

[Jan001]

A dogma is a proclamation on something that always existed and was believed. The Church cannot teach anything that wasn't apostolic.

The Nicene Creed is dogma based on apostolic teaching and Scripture.
The Church's teaching on contraception is not classified as a dogma, but it is part of the ordinary teaching tradition of the Church. That would make it a doctrine.

 

[Jan001]

In the late sixth century, Latin-speaking churches added the words "and from the Son" to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.
So what is canon VII?
CANON VII

WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different eteran Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be an alien from the Church: if a layman do so let him be cast out.

Thank you for the info.

The original purpose of Cannon VII was to prevent heresy.
Seems plain to me that both versions of the Nicene Creed are doctrinally correct. The Latin version is definitely not heretical. Adding those four extra words does help to explain the original Greek language dogma more clearly and completely for the faithful.


John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.


The Holy Spirit does not come to us here on earth unless the Son sends Him to us from His Father. Both Father and Son send the Holy Spirit to us here on earth.

 

[Jan001]

So, yeah, it wasn't an issue in the apostles' time. Rome made it an issue by accepting Marcion's, Apelles', and other baptisms as valid in 256ad.

PS. Have you any other traditions extant in Paul's time to which he says abide?

There was no formal Church-wide consensus about these types of baptisms in 256 AD. That is why there was a dispute. Church councils are called to define church dogma when disputes such as these occur.

The first Church Council was held by the apostles in Jerusalem and it was convened to settle the dispute about whether or not circumcision was necessary for Greek converts. You can read all about it in the Bible.

Apostolic Traditions

Infant Baptism:

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).


How the Gospel of Mark came to be written:

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)


The faithful literally eat and drink Jesus Christ's Body and Blood during the Mass/Divine Liturgy:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

John 6:53-55

"Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." NIV

I will keep attending the Catholic Church. Only her leader has possession of the keys of the kingdom of God and this is how I know for sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding her. It is during her Mass that I receive the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Excellent plan for me.

 

[prodromos]

I honestly have respect for you, so I will let you know in advance:
I am a former seminarian that nearly became a Catholic priest.
I am able, by training and education, to translate Latin and Greek.
I do not argue something unless it is less than I believe, or more than I know is true.

On this issue, the Catholic Church teaches that the Greek expression cannot be altered in any way. She finds that the Latin expression does not sufficiently convey what it is in the Greek. This is the reason for the Filoque. The Filoque cannot be translated or applied into the Greek because the Greek provides a sufficient expression of the Trinity's relationships. Any such action regarding changing the Greek is considered heretical.

For that reason, the Latin Filoque is an attempt to convey the nuances of the Greek into the Latin. It does not change the original meaning, and any attempt to change the Greek is forbidden.

Were you also taught that the Catholic Church has always used unleavened bread?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I honestly have respect for you, so I will let you know in advance:
I am a former seminarian that nearly became a Catholic priest.
I am able, by training and education, to translate Latin and Greek.
I do not argue something unless it is less than I believe, or more than I know is true.

Awesome, as a former seminarian myself and a graduate of seminary with a non-clerical degree, perhaps we have take this discourse to the next level. Alas, my knowledge of Latin is probably paltry compared to yours, but I can probably follow your argument if you take me through it.

On this issue, the Catholic Church teaches that the Greek expression cannot be altered in any way. She finds that the Latin expression does not sufficiently convey what it is in the Greek.

If the Catholic Church teaches that the Greek expression cannot be altered in any way, then why did the Latin Western church make the representatives of the Greek church adopt the formula for the reading of the Creed at the Second Council of Lyon and the Council of Ferrara-Florence? Moreover, in the adoption of the filioque first by the Visigothic Kingdom of Spain in 589, then by the Franks under the Carolingian dynasts, and finally by Rome and all churches within her patrimony, I don't even recall this being part of the argument. It doesn't seem to me that this explanation of the west's treatment of the creed really holds up to the way the west has actually treated the subject in the process of adoption or in subsequent ecumenical discussion.

This is the reason for the Filoque. The Filoque cannot be translated or applied into the Greek because the Greek provides a sufficient expression of the Trinity's relationships. Any such action regarding changing the Greek is considered heretical.

For that reason, the Latin Filoque is an attempt to convey the nuances of the Greek into the Latin. It does not change the original meaning, and any attempt to change the Greek is forbidden.

This just isn't true. The Greek does not contain any such "nuance." It's just not there. At least, there's none that I can see, and my Greek is a whole lot better than my Latin. Can you take me through your argument?

Now, in my opinion, there was a good reason behind the addition of the filioque: its utility in emphasizing the full divinity of the Son in the midst of the continued encounter with Arianism in late antique Spain. That same controversy, in my opinion, gave rise to many of the creedal differences between Greek east and Latin west, namely the development of a broadly ecumenical, compromise creed in the form of a revised Old Roman Creed (the Apostle's Creed), and the development of an exclusive, fiercely Trinitarian creed in the form of the Athanasian Creed. That's my reading of the history, anyway, and I just wanted to provide is as a counter-theory rather than simply attacking yours.

Of course, just because there was good reason for including the filioque, doesn't mean it was legitimate to do so in a non-ecumenical, regional council (Toledo III, 589). Or perhaps you would argue that Toledo did not approve a new text of the creed, but only a standard translation into Latin; not a bad argument at all, and one I could probably accept, but not quite historically accurate. That's why my wife and I omit the filioque during the recitation of the creed (just as we change "Christian" back to "catholic" in the third stanza).

 

[WisdomTree]

For those who have not heard of the Catholic 5 Ds:

• Deposit. Left by the Apostles. Includes both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Infallible, cannot be altered, changed, added to, or subtracted from.
• Dogma. Promulgated by ecumenical councils or declared by reigning Pontiff. Also infallible, also cannot be changed---but also cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, or previous infallible statement or another dogma.
• Doctrine. Explanation of some aspect of the Faith. Not infallible, can be changed, evolved, condemned, abandoned.
• Discipline. Rule established by the Church to help the believer walk the straight and narrow path; includes both celibacy and not eating meat on Fridays during Lent and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
• Devotion. Lowest level of Catholic belief; usually more or less up to the individual believer to practice or not. Includes 99% of all Marian practices, including the Rosary, First Fridays, and belief in apparitons of Mary such as Lourdes or Fatima.

 

[jsimms615]

MOD HAT ON​

This thread has undergone a minor clean up and some posts have been deleted for violation of the below CF rules. Please keep in mind these flaming rules when posting

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.

Thank you and have a great day.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
ccccp
​

The Catholic Church is not opposed to the concept of regeneration. However, the term is stressed by radical protestants, most especially those that are Calvinistic.

Last I checked, RC wasn't radical P

No, the Catholic Church did not acknowledge something created by an institution 1600 years later. Cyprian's views were not accepted by the Catholic Church.

We've already agreed on this. Rome prevailed in her view that Apelles', Valentinius', Marcion's, and other heretics' baptisms did not necessitate a Christian baptism. Their baptisms regenerated (born-again) people too, Rome thought.

 

[steve_bakr]

Originally Posted by Standing Up http://www.christianforums.com/t7781936-41/#post64403841
1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."
ccccp


Last I checked, RC wasn't radical P

We've already agreed on this. Rome prevailed in her view that Apelles', Valentinius', Marcion's, and other heretics' baptisms did not necessitate a Christian baptism. Their baptisms regenerated (born-again) people too, Rome thought.

What are your differences with Baptism in a Catholic Church? When I converted to Catholicism, my Protestant baptism was accepted because it was done with water and in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[WisdomTree]

What are your differences with Baptism in a Catholic Church? When I converted to Catholicism, my Protestant baptism was accepted because it was done with water and in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Same, though in hindsight I may have been (unintentionally) baptized twice...

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Same, though in hindsight I may have been (unintentionally) baptized twice...

yeah rain is good for that . nature's sacrament .

 

[Standing Up]

What are your differences with Baptism in a Catholic Church? When I converted to Catholicism, my Protestant baptism was accepted because it was done with water and in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Not a problem. (You must be born-again. I would agree that RC and Baptists both believe the same thing about Christ---God-in-the-flesh who died for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day.)

The issue under discussion was your Church accepting baptisms from Apelles, Marcion, Valentinus, and other heretics. Apparently only about a decade ago did RC decide maybe they should change their bishop opinion and reject LDS baptism as valid too.

Paul had John's disciples (re)baptized in contrast to Rome's later view of things (Arius', for example, baptism was okay).

 

[Second Phoenix]

.

 

[Second Phoenix]

.