• 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.

Roman Catholic..anything wrong with it?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Don't think that I am a catholic. Never said I was. But without the catholic/orthodox church, christianity wouldn't be here.
You have a problem with that thesis right off the bat. You want us to think that there is one true church--and then named two competing communions (RC and EO) as that one and only. The fact is that the Scriptures were codified, not written, by the undivided church from which most of today's denominations descend (including those two).

And sola scriptura surely is a great problem, otherwise we wouldn't have 30 000 denominations.
We had a bunch before Luther expounded upon the importance of Scripture Alone, so this theory also appears to be dubious.
 
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,205
4,426
53
undisclosed Bunker
✟319,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Sabbath day was instituted by Jehovah for the Israelites to commemorate being brought out of Egypt. We do NOT celebrate the below deity, nor being lead out of Egypt.

Wait... what...? Are you saying Jehovah was a different deity...?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It is obviously not found in protestantism at least, sense not a single member taught what most denominations there taught until the 16th century. And honestly, most protestants betray the teachings of their heroes Luther and Calvin as well.
o_O Have you studied this matter very much?
 
Upvote 0

beebert

Active Member
Sep 2, 2016
140
45
31
Sweden
✟25,133.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have a problem with that thesis right off the bat. You want us to think that there is one true church--and then named two competing communions (RC and EO) as that one and only. The fact is that the Scriptures were codified, not written, by the undivided church from which most of today's denominations descend (including those two).

We had a bunch before Luther expounded upon the importance of Scripture Alone, so this theory also appears to be dubious.
I say that there is one church, which one it is I am not sure of. But I wrote above the problem about protestantism, but then someone mocked me for using many words and saying little. Read the post, see if you understand and then comment on whether you agree or not. I have never said anything as pathetic as "You have to be a catholic to be saved", that is not my point. My point is the mentality of "accepting Christ as my personal savior" as the only thing christianity seems to be about, is a wrong mentality. That is just one part of it all. But in reality, one man's salvation is the salvation of the world. The whole world becomes redeemed. It is not one man's salvation from it. Yes, there were a bunch before Luther. But you know, how valid are this bunch? Can you name them, and also name which of the 30 000 popes in protestantism who is right in their doctrine? And also, I hope you do know that it wasn't until well into the 4th century that the church decided what even counted as scripture. The bishop Athanasius was the one who made the final decision. Before that, many, many christians considered texts such as the book of revelation, 2nd Peter and Hebrews to be very doubtful if they were to be considered autheintic scripture or not. I beg you to understand what I am saying, as I have mentioned many times now, I haven't said, and I don't say "You need to be catholic to be saved". I am saying that the protestant church, which was meant to be faithful to tradition(that was Calvin's and Luther's intention) actually betrayed tradition and scripture, since one must understand the circumstances in which things were written. THe church and its teachings already existed when Paul wrote his epistles, and Paul even thought that the world would come to an end while he was alive. Do you REALLY think that he thought "These epistles of mine shall be considered part of The holy bible, contained in a book called the New Testament". No. Hardly. The gospels weren't even written. Except of course for some of the epistles in the New Testament that are attributed to Paul but weren't actually written by him but after his death. The doctrines of Luther and Calvin, which the majority of "orthodox" protestantism is based upon, wasn't taught by a single member of the church until Luther and Calvin came along. If someone taught it, he was considered a heretic. As the famous John Henry Newman said: "To be deep in history, is to cease being a protestant". The reformation is an idea that was dependent on the circumstances of its time.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
That is because he belongs to a protestant sect and is proud of it rather than of being christian. Not because he follows his own ability of discernment.
The fact is that Protestantism and Catholicism are about equally 'correct' when it comes to the matter of who is conforming to the standards of the Apostolic church. The one side is more in step with the first century church on certain matters while the other is closest to the Apostolic church on others.
 
Upvote 0

beebert

Active Member
Sep 2, 2016
140
45
31
Sweden
✟25,133.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And I want you guys to understand that tradition doesn't mean traditionalism. Tradition means the protection of the pure faith once delivered by the saints. Or as one of history's most famous Church historians said, Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a Lutheran but converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church:

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”
 
Upvote 0

beebert

Active Member
Sep 2, 2016
140
45
31
Sweden
✟25,133.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Perhaps if you could provide a list from which to choose? :sleep:
Modern Protestantism (roots post 1800) - 400-500 million
There are SOME of the biggest ones ;)
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I say that there is one church, which one it is I am not sure of.
You seem to be determined to make it be the Roman Catholic Church. Or are you keeping your eye on the Eastern Orthodox churches as candidates for being the one true church instead?

My point is the mentality of "accepting Christ as my personal savior" as the only thing christianity seems to be about, is a wrong mentality. That is just one part of it all.
Hmmm. Well, I think it's a question of what is meant by that phrase. If it is supposed to mean that this is all that Christianity is about, then that probably isn't a correct view. But if it is intended to say that this is the essence or most basic belief that describes the church of Christ, then that would be a different matter.

But in reality, one man's salvation is the salvation of the world. The whole world becomes redeemed.
So...are we speaking now of universalism?

Yes, there were a bunch before Luther. But you know, how valid are this bunch? Can you name them
Certainly. But the point is that you said Sola Scriptura was the cause of a proliferation of denominations when the truth is that there already were a number of competing churches prior to the Reformation.

and also name which of the 30 000 popes in protestantism who is right in their doctrine?
I'll give you my opinion. Is that what you're after? I thought you were arguing that there is only one true denomination and it must be a pre-Reformation one (for some reason).

And also, I hope you do know that it wasn't until well into the 4th century that the church decided what even counted as scripture.
]
It wasn't until the 4th century that the Scriptures--ALREADY IN USE AND CONSIDERED TO BE INSPIRED--were codified. It was a rather minor move, as a matter of fact, since only three or four of the books of the NT were in question going into those councils, as you know.

I beg you to understand what I am saying, as I have mentioned many times now, I haven't said, and I don't say "You need to be catholic to be saved". I am saying that the protestant church, which was meant to be faithful to tradition(that was Calvin's and Luther's intention) actually betrayed tradition and scripture, since one must understand the circumstances in which things were written. THe church and its teachings already existed when Paul wrote his epistles, and Paul even thought that the world would come to an end while he was alive. Do you REALLY think that he thought "These epistles of mine shall be considered part of The holy bible, contained in a book called the New Testament". No. Hardly. The gospels weren't even written. Except of course for some of the epistles in the New Testament that are attributed to Paul but weren't actually written by him but after his death. The doctrines of Luther and Calvin, which the majority of "orthodox" protestantism is based upon, wasn't taught by a single member of the church until Luther and Calvin came along. If someone taught it, he was considered a heretic. As the famous John Henry Newman said: "To be deep in history, is to cease being a protestant". The reformation is an idea that was dependent on the circumstances of its time.
Since all the Catholic churches accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, as well as do the reformed churches, I don't really see a point here. Perhaps it is an issue concerning interpretation, but if that is it, I still don't see that you've made a case. I'm a Protestant and certainly am not committed to some theologian's interpretation of everything.
 
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,205
4,426
53
undisclosed Bunker
✟319,051.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,395
United States
✟152,342.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Modern Protestantism (roots post 1800) - 400-500 million
There are SOME of the biggest ones ;)

Well, that still leaves 29,779 according to your numbers. So then...
 
Upvote 0

beebert

Active Member
Sep 2, 2016
140
45
31
Sweden
✟25,133.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You seem to be determined to make it be the Roman Catholic Church. Or are you keeping your eye on the Eastern Orthodox churches as candidates for being the one true church instead?


Hmmm. Well, I think it's a question of what is meant by that phrase. If it is supposed to mean that this is all that Christianity is about, then that probably isn't a correct view. But if it is intended to say that this is the essence or most basic belief that describes the church of Christ, then that would be a different matter.


So...are we speaking now of universalism?


Certainly. But the point is that you said Sola Scriptura was the cause of a proliferation of denominations when the truth is that there already were a number of competing churches prior to the Reformation.


I'll give you my opinion. Is that what you're after? I thought you were arguing that there is only one true denomination and it must be a pre-Reformation one (for some reason).

]
It wasn't until the 4th century that the Scriptures--ALREADY IN USE AND CONSIDERED TO BE INSPIRED--were codified. It was a rather minor move, as a matter of fact, since only three or four of the books of the NT were in question going into those councils, as you know.


Since all the Catholic churches accept the Bible as the inspired word of God, as well as do the reformed churches, I don't really see a point here. Perhaps it is an issue concerning interpretation, but if that is it, I still don't see that you've made a case. I'm a Protestant and certainly am not committed to some theologian's interpretation of everything.
I think I am right now leaning towards considering the Orthodox Church to be true... I believe it to be a serious problem that most protestant denominations have de-sacramentalized the world...

Regarding universalism, no. Though I hope for it of course, who wouldn't? But what I mean is that the world is redeemed in a sense. Just as the world fell in Adam, it is redeemed in Christ, and that redemption of the world can be experienced through salvation. It isn't just the redemption of YOUR soul, it is the redemption of the whole cosmos.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And I want you guys to understand that tradition doesn't mean traditionalism. Tradition means the protection of the pure faith once delivered by the saints.
We understand the difference, but you need to understand that "Tradition" is only a theological theory, and one that has been widely abused in order to justify the invention of new doctrines that have no basis in Scripture.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.