Non-Catholic's view of RC Catechism

[sunlover1]

The only thing that's relevant to this discussion is that the Catholic Church considers itself "the Church" and that various other Christian groups are imperfectly united with it.

Actually, the way you describe it, I am not united with the RCC in any way.

Because the Bible can say anything people want it to say.

And so can other early documents.

Plus, if it was actually a belief in the early Church, there should be more than just a few Bible verses supporting it. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox can point to Early Church Fathers, archaeology, and other historical evidence, along with the Bible, in order to justify their beliefs. Protestants should be able to do the same, if it was that their beliefs were actually found in the early Church.

So if their 'beliefs' are found in the Bible (a few Bible verses only) which is
a picture of the actual "early church" they're no good.
But if they're found happening in the (AFTER NT) "early church" they're all
good.
AND, as everyone knows.., the Words of the Apostles, recorded in Scripture can be twisted,
but the "ECF's" words, they can't be.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Actually, the way you describe it, I am not united with the RCC in any way.

As I said, I have given you only a surface explanation. That's not really the point of this thread though.

And so can other early documents.

So if their 'beliefs' are found in the Bible (a few Bible verses only) which is
a picture of the actual "early church" they're no good.
But if they're found happening in the (AFTER NT) "early church" they're all
good.
AND, as everyone knows.., the Words of the Apostles, recorded in Scripture can be twisted,
but the "ECF's" words, they can't be.

I never said any of that. Of course any document can be twisted when taken out of context. However, the earliest of the Church Fathers are contemporaries or students of the Apostles. They aren't far removed. They are a reflection of the Early Church, unless you happen to believe all of the beliefs found in Christianity randomly changed in a short 30 year period.

If there is any indication that there be an invisible Church, then surely we will find it in the ECFs in addition to the Bible. These people were great theologians, and were committed to preserving what they thought was orthodox Christian doctrine. If these sources aren't agreeing with the notion of a completely separate invisible Church, then I think it stands to reason that there probably never was a notion of an invisible Church until a few people 1500 years down the road decided to make up that notion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That's funny, you can't see the invisible church but you can hear it.

Your Denomination [and the Jews] just gotta clear the smoke from yer eyes bro

http://www.christianforums.com/t7164949-3/#post46105783
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

Reve 18:8 by this, in one day shall be arriving the blows of Her, death and sorrow and famine.
And in fire She shall be being burned, that strong Lord, the God, the one judging Her
[Luke 19:41,44/Reve 19:3]

Reve 19:3 And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages".

 

[ivebeenshown]

They are a reflection of the Early Church, unless you happen to believe all of the beliefs found in Christianity randomly changed in a short 30 year period.

I wonder why Paul had to write to Galatians among other cities.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I wonder why Paul had to write to Galatians among other cities.

I assume this is in reference to doctrinal breakdown found amongst some communities in the New Testament?

I will reiterate that the Early Church Fathers were committed to preserving what they thought was orthodox Christian truth, and the earliest of the Fathers were disciples of the Apostles themselves. So unless there was some kind of conspiracy amongst all of the second-generation Christian leaders...

...

Still waiting for ECF evidence of invisible Church.

 

[sunlover1]

Hi Darklite

I never said any of that. Of course any document can be twisted when taken out of context. However, the earliest of the Church Fathers are contemporaries or students of the Apostles.

But then why 'their documents' but not Scripture?
It makes no sense to me. And when things fail to make sense
I (naturally) question them.

They aren't far removed. They are a reflection of the Early Church, unless you happen to believe all of the beliefs found in Christianity randomly changed in a short 30 year period.

OHhhh.
So you want historical writings within 30 years of the NT church?
(Still can't see why Bible isn't good enough)

If there is any indication that there be an invisible Church, then surely we will find it in the ECFs in addition to the Bible.

So you feel that ALL beliefs should be found in both the ECF AND Scripture?

These people were great theologians, and were committed to preserving what they thought was orthodox Christian doctrine.

I underlined what I feel to be a problem.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Still waiting for ECF evidence of invisible Church.

The Church is not invisible. They are flesh and bone. And by their fruits you shall know them.

Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Hebrews 13
15By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

Thank you, Jesus Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
Hi Darklite

These people were great theologians, and were committed to preserving what they thought was orthodox Christian doctrine.

I underlined what I feel to be a problem.

And some even thought that was in the Church of Rome.
Bet they had clean out a lot of "cobwebs" out of their heads from the theology they had in their Denominations

http://www.christianforums.com/t3292756/#post26156729
6 Theologians Cross the Tiber

*snip*

......It's not that odd a question these days in theological circles. Last year a string of theologians left their Protestant denominations for the church of Rome.

The list includes three Lutherans—Reinhard Hütter and Bruce Marshall, theologians at Methodist seminaries (Duke and Southern Methodist), and Mickey Mattox, a Luther scholar at Marquette; two Anglicans—Rusty Reno of Creighton and Douglas Farrow of McGill University; and a Mennonite—Gerald Schlabach of St. Thomas University.............

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hi Darklite

But then why 'their documents' but not Scripture?
It makes no sense to me. And when things fail to make sense
I (naturally) question them.

The Bible alone can produce far too many widely differing interpretations to be meaningful in this context. See: Protestantism as a whole.

You can certainly cite a verse that you think supports an invisible Church, but to actually support that it was believed by the Early Christians, more than just your interpretation of a Bible verse is needed.

OHhhh.
So you want historical writings within 30 years of the NT church?
(Still can't see why Bible isn't good enough)

You know that many of the books of the New Testament were penned quite awhile after the events they record, right? The Gospels in particular are like this.

So you feel that ALL beliefs should be found in both the ECF AND Scripture?

Not necessarily, but it does give a lot of credence to them, as the ECFs are the best source beyond the Bible for what the early Christians believed. I will also still point out that just using the Bible alone isn't really sufficient in this case because that can produce a wildly large amount of ideas, as seen in Protestantism today.

I underlined what I feel to be a problem.

And why is this a problem? Like I said, unless you believe the beliefs of the majority of Christianity randomly changed in a 20 year period (practically overnight when viewed against the backdrop of all Christian history), there's no real reason to assume that the earliest ECFs would have drastically different views than the apostles. The Apostolic Fathers were taught by the apostles, or by students of the Apostles.

The Church is not invisible. They are flesh and bone. And by their fruits you shall know them.

Galatians 5
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Hebrews 13
15By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

Thank you, Jesus Christ.

The commonly accepted definition of the "invisible Church" is that it is a body of believers not embodied in any one particular institution.

So ... still waiting for ECF evidence of invisible Church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
The commonly accepted definition of the "invisible Church" is that it is a body of believers not embodied in any one particular institution.

So ... still waiting for ECF evidence of invisible Church.

Me too

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Me too

I decided to check on the Christian History board and found this thread [that board doesn't get much activity ehehe]

http://www.christianforums.com/f84/
Christian History

http://www.christianforums.com/t7427468/
Universal Invisible Church

Who, before Luther, taught about a "universal invisible church"?

Thank you

 

[ivebeenshown]

The commonly accepted definition of the "invisible Church" is that it is a body of believers not embodied in any one particular institution.

So ... still waiting for ECF evidence of invisible Church.

Ephesians 2
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

But hey let's take this to either your thread or my thread and let LLoJ have his.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*

But hey let's take this to either your thread or my thread and let LLoJ have his.

I am rather fond of this for now

http://www.christianforums.com/t7495160-12/#post55593096

 

[Dark_Lite]

Ephesians 2
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

But hey let's take this to either your thread or my thread and let LLoJ have his.

I'm looking for ECF quotations.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I'm looking for ECF quotations.

I will just lurk awhile until someone comes up with a few

 

[simonthezealot]

The commonly accepted definition of the "invisible Church" is that it is a body of believers not embodied in any one particular institution.

So ... still waiting for ECF evidence of invisible Church.

Clement of Alexandria
"For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church." (The Stromata, 7:5)

Lactantius:
"In the next place, Solomon was never called the son of God, but the son of David; and the house which he built was not firmly established, as the Church, which is the true temple of God, which does not consist of walls, but of the heart and faith of the men who believe on Him, and are called faithful....
Augustine refers to the invisible church:
"But the enemies of this brotherly love, whether they are openly without, or appear to be within, are false Christians, and antichrists. For when they have found an opportunity, they go out, as it is written: 'A man wishing to separate himself from his friends, seeketh opportunities.' But even if occasions are wanting, while they seem to be within, they are severed from that invisible bond of love. Whence St. John says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for had they been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.' He does not say that they ceased to be of us by going out, but that they went out because they were not of us." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3:19:26)


"The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)

Lactantius also tells us:

But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable."

 

[simonthezealot]

Tertullian
"Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under 'three witnesses,' there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) there is the Church, which is a body of three." -

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Tertullian
"Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under 'three witnesses,' there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) there is the Church, which is a body of three." -

That is what I always have been led to believe

http://www.christianforums.com/t7488024/
What particular type of Primacy ought Rome to be accorded?

 

[simonthezealot]

I'm looking for ECF quotations.

Did i give you enough? or would you like more?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Did i give you enough? or would you like more?

Bravo... if only all who take the name of Christ would allow the scriptures, that is, the PROPHETS and the APOSTLES with Christ as the chief cornerstone, to speak to them first and foremost.