Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Only to those who never accepted the Catholic Church's authority to teach the gospel and those who turned away from the Catholic Church because of the bad actions of corrupt men. You are free to travel whatever road you like as far as your personal faith is concerned. God calls his people to follow Christ and Christ teaches in and through the Catholic Church.it has lost its influence and authority due to, I hate to bring this up, the child molestation scandal
Which is exactly what happened, ultimately resulting in the presentation of the Augsburg Confession; a document which I doubt that you have read and possibly don't even know exists. The 95 Theses was only the starting point; the presentation of the AC to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was the birth of what the Catholics called the "Protestant" Church ("Protestant" was a derogatory term that originated from the Catholic Church). Historians universally agree that this moment in History was the kick-off what is known as "The Age of Enlightenment". This was further solidified by the compilation of the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of "Concord".The Reformation had to correct the Catholic Church.
I'm curious; is the blood of Christ present in your worship services? If yes, in what way?I don't know about you, man, I've been listening to The Blood Will Never Lose Its Power, Nothing but the Blood and the like, so please forgive me for being lopsided on this issue.
TLDR is not a good excuse for ignorance of Christ.
That's almost correct. The Reformation had an opportunity to correct the Latin Church. Instead of correcting within, they seperated and established their own entities.The Reformation had to correct the Catholic Church.
I have heard a well read Catholic scholar call this age THE AGE OF ENDARKENMENT because that age darkened the understanding of Europeans and led to the world as we see it now, where faith is ridiculed because it isn't consistent with Occam's razor and the scientific method, and mocked because it relies on mystery and revealed truth in the scriptures and apostolic tradition, and denigrated because it elevates what God says and commands above the wisdom of men. Protestantism opened the door for these things and keeps it open in the lands where it dominates - lands that are increasingly atheist rather than Christian in their schooling, institutions, and even religion.Historians universally agree that this moment in History was the kick-off what is known as "The Age of Enlightenment"
Which is exactly what happened, ultimately resulting in the presentation of the Augsburg Confession; a document which I doubt that you have read and possibly don't even know exists. The 95 Theses was only the starting point; the presentation of the AC to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was the birth of what the Catholics called the "Protestant" Church ("Protestant" was a derogatory term that originated from the Catholic Church). Historians universally agree that this moment in History was the kick-off what is known as "The Age of Enlightenment". This was further solidified by the compilation of the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of "Concord".
View attachment 334775View attachment 334776
Below is a copy of the document, and it it you will see what the historic, original "Evangelical" Church that come out of the Reformation taught and what it looked like; which, by no coincidence is exactly what Confessional Lutherans and Traditional Anglicans look like to this day. You may see things that to the very narrow view of the churches that came out of the radical reformation that externally seem Catholic, but that is because the Catholic Church was not Completely devoid of "evangelical", i.e. Biblical truth and content, but was tainted with errors as I am certain @The Liturgist would agree.
The Church of the Augsburg Confession removed the errors, but retained and restored the historic Evangelical nature of the Church and retained those traditions that, while maybe not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, are neither prohibited nor forbidden by God's Holy Word.
On the other hand... the radical reformation ham-fistedly and indiscriminately skinned and gutted the historic Evangelical Church, more often than not, to politically motivated agendas by leaders who had a need to burn their own, larger pee-hole in the snow-bank of Christianity.
This is true. Every faith group has their tradition and traditions. Even upstart denominations begin with a core set of values that are eventually built upon and/or reinforced.I am using this word in a technical sense. Protestantism is a tradition. As is Lutheranism. As is word of faith. Etc.
Your posts are.
I suppose the detail to uncover is in the words you have in quotation. The Catholic Church in Rome is the same church to whom the Apostle Paul wrote his New Testament letter. The history is there, it's THAT church. The same can be said of Orthodox churches that are east of Rome. There are differences that deveolped over time, but it's undeniable that the Roman Church is the Roman Church of Scripture historically.Anyone claiming they are the "True Church" is going to have a lot of problems.
I suppose the detail to uncover is in the words you have in quotation. The Catholic Church in Rome is the same church to whom the Apostle Paul wrote his New Testament letter. The history is there, it's THAT church. The same can be said of Orthodox churches that are east of Rome. There are differences that deveolped over time, but it's undeniable that the Roman Church is the Roman Church of Scripture historically.
Your stated views are in error. That's as far as one can go. No further is warranted.I don't get the same thing in return, though.
Your stated views are in error. That's as far as one can go. No further is warranted.
This is trueThe Pope is a fallible man. Even Catholics know this.
This is not true; Catholics think that the excathedra statements are true, and hence infallible, but the pope remains a fallible man.But they think He is not fallible whenever he makes an Ex-Cathedra judgment.
This is not true; Catholics think that the excathedra statements are true, and hence infallible, but the pope remains a fallible man.
This is why the Church, Scripturally and historically, is concilliar.You can never be certain a fallible man has said something infallibly true.
This is why the Church, Scripturally and historically, is concilliar.
I mean no disrespect to you and I certainly not our brothers and sisters in the Latin Church by saying this, but you seem to be speaking against the Pope by declaring his fallibility as a man and simultaneously making yourself a "pope" by leaning on your own understanding.
What about the apostles and prophets? They were fallible men yet wrote infallible truth. All truth is infallible, you know. Even you or I can type something infallible. For example, "God is love" and "Jesus saves".You can never be certain a fallible man has said something infallibly true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?