Moral values, that is the matter to see as an inspiration. Lyn has something to teach about moral values so let her be in inspiration to you.Lynn Henning is fine. But she can concentrate on one thing, the environment, because she is not President. A President has to also concentrate on the economy, Iran, China, unemployment. immigration, etc.
Your point is irrelevant in regards to the Orthodox Church.
If you had understood the rules for the Orthodox Church, you probably wouldn't have made your irrelevant comment.I don't make rules for other churches.
Except that in the case of the Orthodox Church, it is not a false claim.I just point out that it is a false claim to say that churches that share in the same communion must by that act alone be declaring themselves to be the same denomination/church
Prodromos defends Catholic a lot of times but he is ultimately Orthodox so he is going to advocate his belief.I did not err. You are making it very difficult to be magnaminus.
But you really get me. Of all who are not of the same church, we are most in agreement. Correct me if I am wrong, but we both believe in apostolic succession, in the Real Presence, the veneration of saints, in the sacrifice of the mass, in honoring Mary, in a high form of liturgy, in the value of repetitive prayer, in salvation through the sacraments, etc.
And yet you never come to my aid with Protestants. Every time I see your post, I know it will be an attack on me. You seem to care more about making me look bad than defending the truth. You seem to hold onto that motto that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Be careful, my brother in Christ. He who says he knows God but hates his brother is a liar.
I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.
I think we all knew that.
We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.
Except that's not true. Many Presbyterians do require that you discuss matters with the leadership
At some point in the Communion liturgy, it’s common for Presbyterians to note that we practice an open Communion. This means that all Christians, regardless of one’s particular tradition or church membership, are welcome to join us in celebrating the Lord’s Supper. By contrast, churches that practice a closed Communion—like the Roman Catholic Church—require that you be a member of that denomination in order to share in Communion.
An Invitation to the Table
And there are Baptists who practice very strict Closed Communion,
The people you had quoted do not have the charism of infallibility. According to the Catholic Church, the only individual who has infallibility is the pope, and only when he speak ex cathedra. That means that not all scholars would agree with them, any more than there is total agreement among Protestant scholars.
Well-known Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has listed the verses that a Catholic must interpret according to the Church.
As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:
(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.
(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.
(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.
The Limits of Scripture Interpretation
I agree.
I agree. We Catholics teach God’s truth and we do not deny the Church’s authority.
Well, since you are not Catholic, I think you meant to write “The churches teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof.”. And that is the problem with Protestantism. There are so many different churches with so many conflicting gospels. One says that a person must ask Jesus as his Savior and Lord. Another says you only ask Jesus in your heart as Savior. One says you must be baptized in order to be born again. Another says that baptism is just a symbol. One says that once you are saved you can never lose your salvation. Another says that you can lose your salvation. Truth cannot be contradictory – so all these churches cannot be the pillar and foundation of truth. If all these churches are the “pillar and foundation of truth” then truth is relative. What is true for me may not be true for you. A Lutheran can hold that baptismal regeneration is true and a Baptist can hold it is only symbolic. In Protestantism, it seems that it does not matter, as long as you get your own “truth” from the Bible.
Now, aren’t you establishing a rule here? Do you have a scripture verse for this? If you don’t have the scripture verse then you are violating your own rule.
Again, you use the word “Church” as if there is one Church. But in Protestantism, you have thousands of different churches – each listening to the word of Christ in a different way. Which one is right?
Actually, the apostles proved the message by signs and wonders – especially witnessing the resurrected Christ.
Also, there is a lot of inconsistency between the Old Testament and New. The Old says there one God. The New Testament says that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit are each God, and yet the Father is no the Son, and they both are not the Spirit. The Old has bulls and goats sacrificed, the New says that only Christ has been sacrificed. The Old says one must be circumcised. The New says no. True, there was also some continuity between the Testaments, but if the apostles based their validity based on the OT alone, everyone would have remained Jewish.
Again, you use the Church as some monolithic entity. But with Protestantism, it is not. So what happens when the Holy Spirit guides and enlightens the Anglican Church one way and the Lutheran Church in a contrary way?
I have always understood this. But where is this found in the Bible? Where is it in the Bible that the Bible is our only rule of faith?
Again, where is this in the Bible?
The Catholic Church has the same OT that was entrusted to the Jews at the time of Christ and it was that one which was quoted from by Christ and the writers of the New Testament. The Protestant have the same OT as the Jews AFTER the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.
If you're not Catholic then, generally speaking, you are Protestant. Thanks.As neither catholic nor protestant
Good Day, Pakerman
I do not find the church of Romes name-it-claim self absorbing tenants useful.
The fact of the matter they may have limits that they proclaim, but hey are thier's alone.
The issue stands the Roman Church has yet to interpret one single passage of Scripture.
In Him,
Bill
They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.
Such an interpretation is unknown in the Church until some time after the reformation.The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.
Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.
In Matt 16 Jesus scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally -
Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees
in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.
They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.
Such an interpretation is unknown in the Church until some time after the reformation.
No, they left Jesus. All except the twelve. And it says that they never came back to Him. Now, if they misunderstood Jesus, why did He not yell back to them and they "Hey, come back! You totally misunderstood Me. I was not talking literally! So come back!". Jesus do not do that! If our Lord meant this figuratively then Jesus allowed all these people to leave Jesus to the ruin of their souls and all for a misunderstanding! Not only that, but John, who wrote this gospel, did not clarify that this was only meant to be a figure of speech, which he did at other places in his gospel to avoid any misunderstandings.The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.
Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'right now' you must drink my blood.Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.
Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees
in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.
They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.
Such an interpretation is unknown in the Church until some time after the reformation.
No, they left Jesus.
All except the twelve.
And it says that they never came back to Him. Now, if they misunderstood Jesus, why did He not yell back to them and they "Hey, come back! You totally misunderstood Me. I was not talking literally! So come back!".
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?