Standing Up
On and on
That's not true (the bolded part). Haven't you read the Gospel or know subsequent church history
But it's not a Protestant error, but a continuation of Rome's error.
Upvote
0
-
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.
Protestant errors and inventions (3)
- Thread starter katholikos
- Start date
- Status
That's not true (the bolded part). Haven't you read the Gospel or know subsequent church history
But it's not a Protestant error, but a continuation of Rome's error.
Standing Up
On and on
- A bible with only 66 books.
- Saint Paul's letters are not inspired.
- Sola Scriptura - In English "Scripture alone" is the theory (unsupported by sacred scripture) that "all things necessary for God's glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: to which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or apostolic tradition".
#2 fringe groups only
#3 true and it is clearly supported by sacred scripture (why do they call it sacred when they think it incomplete, imperfect, and needs improvement by their traditions of men?)
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Obviously they weren't, but Rome insisted they were valid nonetheless. Read about it. Here's some starters for you.
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
The gates of hell prevailing have zero to do with whether the Roman Church prevailed or failed. You're conflating the keys given to Peter to open the doors to the kingdom (Mt. 16?), which he did preaching first to Jew and gentile (Acts), with the keys to hell that Christ still has (Rev. 3). So, yes, the Roman Church could/did fail and still Christ has the keys and the gates of hell will never prevail.
On the ministry bit, you're conflating the Levitical model of high priest (Pope), priest (cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons), laity, with the Christian model of high priest (Christ) and his body (all priest believers). Within the Christian model, there are elders (some of whom are bishops), deacons, and believers at various growth stages, all of whom are born-again, and all of whom are of the priesthood.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The practice of Rome was not to rebaptize certain heretics coming into the Catholic Church; on the other hand the practice of North African Churches was not consistent (i.e., some did, and some didn't). A certain bishop from Numidia (a North African province) asked St. Cyprian's advice on the fact that bishops in Mauretania (another North African province) did not rebaptize Novatians coming into the Catholic Church. St. Cyprian replied that Novatians need to be rebaptized, classing them with other well-known heresies such as the Montanists who were known to be rebaptized. Further, St. Cyprian assumed that the bishops were free to decide on the practice. The letter was circulated and reached Rome. Thereupon, Pope St. Stephen replied that it was not proper to rebaptize heretics who baptized according to the Faith given by Jesus Christ (i.e., "In Jesus' name") and used the correct formula (i.e., "in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"); Pope Stephen further threatened excommunication on those who did not adhere to the same standard. St. Cyprian replied that Pope St. Stephen was wrong.
Is it possible that the cause of the controversy was that St. Cyprian simply misinterpreted Pope St. Stephen's response as an allowance for EVERY kind of baptism performed by heretics? Possible, but that was not the problem. While it can be reasonably argued that Pope St. Stephen's position did not allow for EVERY heretical baptism to be accepted, it is clear that St. Cyprian's own position was that EVERY baptism outside the Catholic Church (whether of schismatics or heretics, and regardless of what type of heresy) could not be accepted. In this, St. Cyprian was clearly wrong. It was also wrong for St. Cyprian to advise that the matter should be left up to each bishop in his diocese, for such a position would break the Eucharistic unity of the Churches (as proposed in a previous post, imagine a Christian being able to receive communion in one See, and then discovering that he cannot receive communion in another See because his baptism was rejected and not considered a Christian).
Upvote
0
F
frogman2x
Guest
Most I have known do not. Most know the traditions of the church more than they know the Bible. Of coures there are excceptions and you seem to be one of them.
kermit
Upvote
0
F
frogman2x
Guest
Then he Caholic church can't be the curch Jesus estgablished because it certainy became corrupt and sdo have several Protestand denominations.
Are you familiar with the term the "invisible church?" That is the only one that cannot become corrupt for the resosn you just stated.
kermit
Upvote
0
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
As you are well aware, scripture has absolutely nothing in it about archbishops, cardinals, and a papal office. Catholic scholars teach that the primitive church had but two offices - elder (presbyter)/bishop (overseer) and deacon. Everything that you mentioned can be traced over a period of time as various church organizations have evolved and language has developed.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Any Catholic who goes to Mass on a weekly basis and listens hears the 70% of the Bible in a 3 year timespan. Those who attend daily Mass as well hear 85% in 2 years. Those who pray the Divine Office, admittedly a small number, get 100% in two years. Then there's those of us who read Scripture every day, and supplement it with ECF writings, which is what Sacred Tradition is all about.
I've heard it said that 7% of Catholics do 90% of the work of the Church. But there's the 80/20 principal that's alive in every organization.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
You mean, other than that Christ instituted bishops (which includes archbishops and cardinals and popes)? Christ chose apostles, yes or yes? Bishops are successors of the apostles. "Catholic scholars" (maybe you could cite one or two?) do nothing of the sort. Timothy was a bishop ordained by Paul. So was Titus. Peter was named head of the Church on Earth. Priests were appointed by bishops to help them with ever increasing numbers of the faithful. Deacons, also, assisted bishops. So the word is not Biblical, but then, neither is "Trinity" or "Bible". And yet they're valid concepts and institutions.
Upvote
0
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
That last comment was uncalled for.
I hope you understand that Exodus and Deuteronomy were written centuries before the first century. The question was how you know precisely what the seder celebration was in the first century when Jesus celebrated with His disciples. You seem to believe that the present Orthodox Jewish seder is somehow unbiblical and that the Jews of today either do not read or do not follow Exodus and/or Deuteronomy. Granted that they do not have the Levitical priesthood or the Temple, but they assuredly do have lambs to eat and unleavened bread.
In any event, back to your initial supposition - that the Passover seder was returning to the actual Passover meal and was not a memorial meal in honor of God's passing over of the Jewish people. There is nothing in either passage to suggest that the Passover was anything other than a memorial. The priest did not mystically get sent back in time to Egypt when he made the offering in the Temple and the Jews did not go there either. It is wishful thinking to imagine that they did.
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Exodus and Deuteronomy dictated the Jewish way of life. If it says do XYZ, they do XYZ. Until the time there was no way for them to sacrifice animals. So they followed the dictates of the Law. Jesus fulfilled the law, replaced the sacrificial lamb with Himself. When we celebrate the Mass we go enter into the one sacrifice of Christ, as the Jews entered into the one Passover by re-enacting every aspect. Why do you think Jerusalem was so full at Passover? Because the Jews had to sacrifice their lambs...this is also the time when Jesus went throught the Temple moneychangers and scattered the lambs and money...
Upvote
0
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
Where do I begin? You ask so many questions.
You mean, other than that Christ instituted bishops (which includes archbishops and cardinals and popes)? No, I assuredly do not mean that.
Christ chose apostles, yes or yes? Yes. Twelve to be precise - no more and no less.
Bishops are successors of the apostles. Assuming this to be true (which it is not) then there can only be twelve bishops because Jesus Christ only chose twelve despite the fact that there were far more disciples.
"Catholic scholars" (maybe you could cite one or two?) do nothing of the sort. I think you will find this article helpful and interesting - A Roman Catholic Explains the Biblical History of Eldership
Timothy was a bishop ordained by Paul. So was Titus. Interesting assertion given two facts - the twelve apostles were very much alive and active at the time and Timothy and Titus were probably unmarried and without children. The same Paul specifically stated that a bishop must be the husband of one wife having obedient children. (I Timothy 3:1-4)
Peter was named head of the Church on Earth. I really don't think you want to go there, do you?
Priests were appointed by bishops to help them with ever increasing numbers of the faithful. Deacons, also, assisted bishops. So the word is not Biblical, but then, neither is "Trinity" or "Bible". And yet they're valid concepts and institutions. I am not discussing the validity or invalidity of these individuals, but simply that the corporate structure of the modern Catholic Church was unknown to the writers of the New Testament.
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
You must not be reading through those letters in the links. Rome was not rebaptizing any heretics. Rome was accepting them all as valid. That was the issue.
Now, true enough, later, like some 10 years ago, Rome began to distinguish baptisms, like LDS, as invalid, from a Christian one. But c200 onward, Rome opened her arms to all of them.
So, we can chalk one up for the Protestants, as Rome came around finally to their point of view.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
