Why Catholic (And Not Just Christian)?

[Major1]

And my point has always been my friend (and you have yet answered) among all the different Protestant churches and sects, what authority determines who's comments agree with the bible, and who's does not. What if you and this poster disagreed on a certain bible passage, who determines who's right and who's wrong?



Again.... by what or who's authority in Protestantism determines what someone says is validated by Scripture or invalidated?



Oh.... I understand, and agree when it comes to interpreting/understanding Scripture, you have no authority over me or anyone else. And I am happy to see you agree. So...... I would suggest when you post Scripture passages and give your personal fallible opinion on said passage, you might want to add with said post that your interpretation/understanding is subject to error. Willing to do that?



You infallible? I agree. As for the Pope, Scripture disagrees with you.In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gives Peter alone “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” and the power to “bind and loose” (Matt. 16:16-20). Peter’s unique authority is powerfully exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, when Peter made a definitive ruling regarding circumcision “and all the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:12).

As the chief “overseer” of the Church, Peter—and his successors—was to maintain doctrinal purity, as well as doctrinal unity, in the Church. The eminent Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn affirms this unitive role:

"It is Peter who becomes the focal point of unity for the whole Church . . . he became the most hopeful symbol of unity for that growing Christianity which more and more came to think of itself as the Church Catholic” (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 386).

Writing in the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives important testimony to the primacy of the Pope. Dealing with the Gnostic heretics in the second century, he asserted that the beliefs of every local Christian church must be congruent, not just with apostolic tradition, but with the teachings of every other Christian church. Why? Because the Church is essentially Catholic. The primary way, wrote the ancient bishop of Lyons, that Christ ensures the unity of his Church is through the Petrine office: the church in Rome “is the greatest and most important and best-known of all . . . For with this church, because of her more powerful pre-eminence all churches must agree” (Against Heresies, III, 3.2) . (source:reasonablecatholic.com)




Really??? How do you know this? Sounds as if you are saying you have some sort of authority over "every other person." that debates with me. Or you know whats in thier hearts. Hmmmm... With all respect Maj1, I find that a very odd thing to say.



Incorrect.... I bring with me the teachings of the "Catholic Church." For the ump-tenth time, the Roman Catholic Church is one of many Rites of the Catholic Church, all which are in full communion with the Pope.



F.Y.I. Thats because I am a Catholic Christian. (converted, was a member of every Protestant church or sect at one time untill the Holy Spirit led me to Christs true Church) Again... The RCC is one of many Rites of the Catholic Church.



The Catholic Church has never claimed to be God!

Since we agree that NO ONE is infallible, including the POPE and the RCC, why then do you think that only RCC interpretations of Scripture is the correct one???

Your ongoing argument is that Protest churches have no authority to define Scriptures except the RCC.

Do you not understand that all Christian denominations have a higharchey of individuals or a Presbytery or council of individuals who over the years have established what they interpret the Scriptures to mean JUST AS DID THE RCC?????

Your argument therefore does not exist!!!!!

That is the reason for the Reformation. The RCC interpreted Scriptures in error and added many doctrines which were not in the Bible at all.

 

[Major1]

Sola Scriptura was unheard of for the first fourteen hundred plus years of Christianity



Do you believe that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?




Say's who? By who's or what authority determined it is not? Yours?




Ah..... I see, in your opinion, which could be in error, correct? (i.e. fallible, correct?)




You mean "Churches" Plural, as in thousands of different non-Catholic/Protestant churches/sects. If any two of these churches disagree on any Scripture verses, (which I could give plenty of examples) where in Sola Scriptura does it teach by who's or what authority has the final say?



Say's who?



But you will admit your opinion here could be in error.... right? Fallible.



I am happy to see you agree that without any type of authority that any church can interpret the bible they see correct, and everyone else incorrect. Hence: Thousands of different churches and sects, all being their very own little pope



By what authority did you determine this? and how early?



According to the Acts of the Apostles, an Ethiopian of the first century found himself in the same situation with respect to a passage from the Book of Isaiah (Is. 53:7-8) and recognized that he had need of an interpreter (Acts 8:30-35). The Second Letter of Peter insists that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and it also observes that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficult passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they do also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their own ruin" (2 Pt. 3: 16).

[Staff edit].

Really Maj1, this dosen't sound like you being a bit authoritive, telling me I can't understand the Bible correctly? Hmmmm......

I'd like to back up a bit Major1. Back on post #27 you said:



And I asked,

"Including babies in the womb, children under the age of reason, or the severly mentalilty handicapped? I mean, you do say ALL includes every single human being. Surley you are not suggesting that those I mentioned are not human beings?"

Couldn't help but noticed you passed this up, care to respond now?

You said...………

And I asked,

"Including babies in the womb, children under the age of reason, or the severly mentalilty handicapped? I mean, you do say ALL includes every single human being. Surley you are not suggesting that those I mentioned are not human beings?"​

Couldn't help but noticed you passed this up, care to respond now?


IF you did not post so convoluted and wandering comments so that I could follw you, then responding would be possible. As it is it is impossible for me to respond to every thing you post in one post.

[Staff edit].

I cannot think of anything farther from the truth. I believe in an age of accountability, and believe that Infants and certain Developmentally Disabled people (that cannot think for themselves) have been accepted to heaven and will be with the Lord the moment that they die. I also believe in a God of Grace.​

 

[tdidymas]

It is true that the RCC makes much of Apostolic Succession--and the RCC also has a particular and dubious twist on the matter--but Apostolic Succession is certainly not something that is peculiar to the Church of Rome.

Most Christians belong to denominations that believe in Apostolic Succession and whose clergy operate according to it. That includes Greek Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans, Armenians, Lutherans, Methodists, and a bunch of smaller denominations.

I see your point, even I believe in that concept in this way: the only apostolic succession I can see that is real is knowing the NT and living it.

But my point in what I said in the earlier post was speaking of the kind propagated by the RCC. That is the kind I think is unbiblical.
TD

 

[Albion]

I see your point, even I believe in that concept in this way: the only apostolic succession I can see that is real is knowing the NT and living it.

Okay, but that isn't about Apostolic Succession one way or the other.

But my point in what I said in the earlier post was speaking of the kind propagated by the RCC. That is the kind I think is unbiblical.
TD

That makes me ask what about that kind are you referring to.

...that it has the bishop of Rome as the head of the worldwide church? Or that he is empowered by that church to make supposedly infallible decrees? Or something else. I am curious, that's all.

 

[Fidelibus]

By and large, the answer in the case of Protestants is the same as in your own church.

The church has a standard of belief, and it is promulgated in one or more creeds or official statements. There is really no issue here, despite how hard you are working to find one.

The church? A standard of belief? Why then do some of the thousands different Protestant/non-catholic "churches" teach same sex marriage is accepted and some do not? Why then do some Protestant/non-catholic "churches" teach abortion is acceptable and some do not? Why then do some Protestant/non-catholic "churches" teach that euthanasia is acceptable and some do not? I could give more examples but I'm sure you get my point, and you go on to say "There is really no issue here." Really?

 

[Fidelibus]

[Staff edit].

I cannot think of anything farther from the truth. I believe in an age of accountability, and believe that Infants and certain Developmentally Disabled people (that cannot think for themselves) have been accepted to heaven and will be with the Lord the moment that they die.

So what you are now saying is that there are exceptions, and that the word "All" in Rom.3:23 does not necessarily mean or include every single human being? That there "are exceptions?" Is this what you are saying? Please clarify this for me.

I also believe in a God of Grace

As do I..... Ps. 107:1

See Maj1, we can agree on some things

 

[Major1]

The church? A standard of belief? Why then do some of the thousands different Protestant/non-catholic "churches" teach same sex marriage is accepted and some do not? Why then do some Protestant/non-catholic "churches" teach abortion is acceptable and some do not? Why then do some Protestant/non-catholic "churches" teach that euthanasia is acceptable and some do not? I could give more examples but I'm sure you get my point, and you go on to say "There is really no issue here." Really?

YES.....Really and frankly I am amazed that you choose to go down this path, but since you have chosen to do so it must be said to you the RCC says that Priests can not be married, but the Bible says that ALL Bishops MUST be married.

1 Timothy 3:2...………...
"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach".


The RCC says to pray the Rosary, but the Bible says we are not to bow down to ANY Image.

Exodus 20:4...………
"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."


The RCC teaches that Mary is to be prayed to but the Bible says that the only intermediator between God and man is Jesus.

1 Tim. 2:5...……….
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;"

However, in direct disobedience to the Word of God the RCC teaches that Mary was "preserved free from all stain of original sin" (CCC 966), in reality:
(1) Mary was a sinner who had a sin nature and needed a Savior too (Luke 1:46-47; Rom 3:23).

(2) She was not and is not the Co-Redeemer or Co-Redemptrix. Co-Redemptrix, refers to the Catholic teaching that Mary is a subordinate but essential participant in redemption; in essence that Mary gave free consent to give life to the Christ the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the Cross, and to offer his sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of all mankind.

This is blatantly false theology. There is one and only one Redeemer, Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5; cf. John 17:3; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 7:25; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

Praying the rosary assigns a task to Mary that the Bible never gives her (Co-Redemptrix). Jesus is our one and only and complete Redeemer (Gal 3:13; 4:4-5; Tit 2:14; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Rev 5:9), our advocate (1 John 2:1), and our only mediator (1 Tim 2:5).

(3) Scripture never instructs us to worship mere "men" (anthropolatry, Acts 10:25-26; 14:11-15).

I do not know of ANY Protestant church that blantley disobeys the Word of God as does the RCC.

It is one thing to interpret Scripture in a different way than someone else. It is quite another thing to totally disregard what the Scriptures actually do say.

If you want to continue this line of thinking, let me know as there are about 30 or so more RCC teachings we can discuss which are not Biblical in any way.

 

[Major1]

So what you are now saying is that there are exceptions, and that the word "All" in Rom.3:23 does not necessarily mean or include every single human being? That there "are exceptions?" Is this what you are saying? Please clarify this for me.




As do I..... Ps. 107:1

See Maj1, we can agree on some things

You see, this is what you always try to do. You lay out the bait in a thoughtful question and when someone says...."Yes, there are exception", You jump on that like a dog on a ham bone and then use that to say what you are wanting to believe.

I am saying that what I said is the way that it is and that is NOT AN EXCEPTION but instead it is the way God is and has always worked.

"ALL have sinned means ALL have sinned" including the Pope and me and you and yes Mary.

I will say to you again what I have already said and that is God out of his love and grace allow infants and mentally ill to go to heaven because that IS WHAT I BELIEVE!
Of course, there is no Scripture for this, but I PERSONALLY am comfortable with having no Scripture here. To ME it is a “logical” extrapolation extending from God’s attributes. God includes babies, aborted fetuses, the mentally retarded and the infant or young child unable to believe within his elective covenant relationship.

I do not know how else to say that.

 

[Fidelibus]

[Staff edit].

Now as far as married priests. [Staff edit]. Sooo.... FYI. In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood and is also the norm for Orthodox and Oriental Christians. Priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite is not a forced discipline, but accepted. Also, there are married priests from many Protestant Churcehs that converted to Catholicism that are ordained priests in the Latin Rite. finally, priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable dogma but a disciplinary rule.

Now as for your personal interpretation of 1Tim.3:2. (which you would agree is subject to error... correct?) If you would have continued with verses 4-5, one can clearly see the obvious absurdities in your argument. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.

The RCC says to pray the Rosary, but the Bible says we are not to bow down to ANY Image.

Please show anywhere in official teachings of the Catholic Church, (any of the rites) where it says it is a requirement for Catholics to pray the Rosary! (like maybe the Catechism) Good luck! Lol!

p.s. what does praying the Rosary have to do with bowing down to graven images?

The RCC teaches that Mary is to be prayed to but the Bible says that the only intermediator between God and man is Jesus.1 Tim. 2:5...………."For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus;"

Guess what,the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense.However, you neded to include vs. 6-7 to get the full context.Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

However, in direct disobedience to the Word of God the RCC teaches that Mary was "preserved free from all stain of original sin" (CCC 966), in reality:
(1) Mary was a sinner who had a sin nature and needed a Savior too (Luke 1:46-47; Rom 3:23).

I'll address this when I respond to your post #52

(2) She was not and is not the Co-Redeemer or Co-Redemptrix. Co-Redemptrix, refers to the Catholic teaching that Mary is a subordinate but essential participant in redemption; in essence that Mary gave free consent to give life to the Christ the Redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the Cross, and to offer his sacrifice to God the Father for the sake of the redemption of all mankind.

This is blatantly false theology. There is one and only one Redeemer, Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5; cf. John 17:3; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 7:25; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

Praying the rosary assigns a task to Mary that the Bible never gives her (Co-Redemptrix). Jesus is our one and only and complete Redeemer (Gal 3:13; 4:4-5; Tit 2:14; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Rev 5:9), our advocate (1 John 2:1), and our only mediator (1 Tim 2:5).

Mary as co-redemptrix is a doctrine not a dogma. also, and FYI, The Catholic Church does not teach, never has and never will that Mary as Co-redemptrix is equal to Christ. “Co” is from the Latin “cum,“ meaning “with”. “Trix” is a feminine suffix, so the word means “the woman with the redeemer”—the woman with the one doing the act of redemption.

(3) Scripture never instructs us to worship mere "men" (anthropolatry, Acts 10:25-26; 14:11-15).

And the Catholic Church agrees. (all Rites) We Catholics worship God alone, revealed to us a Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To God alone do we direct worship and praise, God alone is the One we adore. It is by the power and will of God that the universe came into existence, and it’s by His will and love that it is sustained. To think Catholics worship anyone or thinig other than God is nonsence.... plain and simple!

[Staff edit].

If you want to continue this line of thinking, let me know as there are about 30 or so more RCC teachings we can discuss which are not Biblical in any way.

[Staff edit].

As far as unbiblical teachings, you mean like the "Altar call", the "Sinners prayer" and "sola scriptura" that are un-biblical man-made traditions many Protestant/non-Catholic churches/sects adhere too? Sure..... I'm game![/QUOTE]

 

[Fidelibus]

[Staff edit].

I am saying that what I said is the way that it is and that is NOT AN EXCEPTION but instead it is the way God is and has always worked.

But would you also admit that you may be wrong?

"ALL have sinned means ALL have sinned" including the Pope and me and you and yes Mary.

I have alreading aditted that yes I am a sinner, Pope Francis is a self admitted sinner and goes to confession just like I do, you are a sinner, with the exception of The Blessed Virgin Mary. Let's look at Lk.1:47 that many like yourself proves your point. "My soul rejoices in God my savior’ in Luke." [Staff edit]. You see Maj1, the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was "saved." Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was "saved" from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be "saved" completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants and non-Catholics like yourself tend to emphasize God’s "salvation" almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

"Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever." ----Jude 24-25

Six hundred years ago, ( a hundred years before any Protestant Church or Sect was even heard of) the great Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus explained that falling into sin could be likened to a man approaching unaware a deep ditch. If he falls into the ditch, he needs someone to lower a rope and save him. But if someone were to warn him of the danger ahead, preventing the man from falling into the ditch at all, he would be saved from falling in the first place. Likewise, Mary was saved from sin by receiving the grace to be preserved from it. But she was still saved.

I will say to you again what I have already said and that is God out of his love and grace allow infants and mentally ill to go to heaven because that IS WHAT I BELIEVE!

You are totally missing the point Maj1. As you well know Rom. 3:23 says..."all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." Right? When this passage say's "all have sinned" would you not agree that this means "past tence" or in other words, something that happend, something somebody did? In this case...:sinned !! So my point is, to believe as you believe, "all" means "all" with no exceptions, includes the unborn, severly mentally handicapped, and children under the age of reason.

Just for fun, lets take a close lookand use of the word “all” in verse 23. By your own admission you think this literally means “all” persons, correct? Remember, you did say "every human being" with no exception, correct? How about Jesus, would you consider Him an exception? Do you think He commited any sins? Or do you think this is used more generally to refer to most? If you said literally… meaning every human person, then I would ask you if there could be any exceptions to this? For instance, did Jesus commit any sins? I think we both would agree of course he didn’t sin… He’s special! He’s perfect! However, you would agree Jesus is still a person, both a divine and a human person and one who did not commit any personal sin (2 Cor. 5:21), clearly this is an exception to the “all” in verse 23 of Romans 3. Right?

So, the point I'm making is if there is one exception, why can’t there be others? What about Enoch in Genesis 5:21-24? Unlike the rest of his family tree, Enoch didn’t die because he “walked with God” therefore, God “took him!” Could it be that Enoch too is an exception to this “all” in Romans?

How about the “all” who came out to be baptized by John at the Jordan?----Matt. 3:5–6:

"Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins."

Does this “all” truly mean “all”? Or most? Or even some? For instance, did John baptize King Herod? Or what about the scribes sent to question him? How about the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate? Does All mean All here as well?

Of course, there is no Scripture for this, but I PERSONALLY am comfortable with having no Scripture here.

I find this very interesting Maj1. You are comfortable with having "no" Scripture? What happened to your belief of the "Bible Alone?" As I recall, back on your post #27 you stated:

I come at every debate through the eyes of Bible understanding and I am not weighted down with the doctrines of man on theological issues.

Now being comfortable with having no Scripture, isn't that kinda like being weighted down with the doctrines of (yourself) man on your part? What say you?

God includes babies, aborted fetuses, the mentally retarded and the infant or young child unable to believe within his elective covenant relationship.

As a sola scripturists, could you show where in Scriptre it specifically say's this?

I do not know how else to say that.

I do.... as a brother of person that has mental limitations, the term you used..."mentally retarded" is so inappropriate.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not so.

Disputing the the longest history of the Catholic Church or regarding it as just another denomination IS the functional myth.

There was only one church the Catholic Church. A term which goes back to early Christianity. Early fathers testify to that.

The adjective " Roman" is far more recent used by others about the church not by the church itself : to my knowledge it does not appear in council documents.
Or indeed Vatican council documents - I would be interested in references that dispute that, but I doubt they exist.

Whilst Iraneus noted the true doctrine and apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church is thAt of Rome, and also lists the bishops of Rome, ( the primacy of the bishop of Rome Noted also in council, as was the fact it spoke for Peter) it was not necessary to say it in the name. There was only one catholic Church that met in council to rule doctrine, they called it the Catholic Church.

It was that church in council that pronounced authority and content of the New Testament and creed.

Indeed There was only one Catholic Church until eastern split away in the schism.
Only then did the word Roman become even useful as a term to identify the original.

The very idea of denominations is a post reformation thing
Prior to that there were only heresies, that came and went as the church ruled against them e.g. Arianism which resulted in councils ruling,
So Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the root before others split away.

It is a functional myth to pretend it is a denomination, like Anglicanism, whose origin is clear in Henry 8 deciding he didn't like the adultery rules of the Catholic church so started his own, with him and royal successors as the boss. As history shows.

That is what we call a "functional myth." It builds loyalty among the membership, but the historic facts can be read to mean that several other denominations might actually be the oldest. Better to stick to saying your church is the largest, if you need something other than just claiming that it is correct in its beliefs.

 

[Isaiah60]

I've been a Christian since I was 14 and am 47 now. In this time I've been Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Seventh Day Baptist and attended other denominations before I finally committed myself to becoming an Anglican Catholic.
The word Catholic basically means united in the body of Christ, the Universal Church. Each denomination has a name but even the most Protestant denominations will admit they are Catholic when they know what the word means.
I am now a Catholic but this doesn't change the nature of my religion. I am still a Christian and always will be one. Just look at my profile and you'll see I have Christian under religion and Anglican under my avatar. Also, Anglicans are both Catholic and Protestant. We do not have any special doctrines (e.g., pet doctrines). We were part of the Protestant reformation, the church that translated and published the King James Bible, and yet we are also Catholic. All Christians are Catholic.

 

[Albion]

Not so.

Disputing the the longest history of the Catholic Church or regarding it as just another denomination IS the functional myth.

There was only one church the Catholic Church. A term which goes back to early Christianity. Early fathers testify to that.

They were not referring to the Roman Catholic Church or to the Papal Church or to the Church of Rome, however. As has been explained here by others, the reference to Catholic was to the authentic church then still united, East and West, as opposed to the many Gnostic and other sects of the time which had some very unorthodox beliefs about Christ, God, and the Church.

The adjective " Roman" is far more recent used by others about the church not by the church itself : to my knowledge it does not appear in council documents.

It is part of the legal name of the church, however.

The very idea of denominations is a post reformation thing
Prior to that there were only heresies, that came and went as the church ruled against them e.g. Arianism which resulted in councils ruling,
So Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the root before others split away.

That's what Roman Catholics like to say, just as they want all the rest of the Christian world to be called non-Catholic and their churches not even called churches but, instead, ecclesial communities.

In short, the self-satisfying jargon that your denomination likes to use is fine when you are in your church. Other denominations have their own kind of talk that they like to use, too. But that means nothing elsewhere.

It is a functional myth to pretend it is a denomination, like Anglicanism, whose origin is clear in Henry 8 deciding he didn't like the adultery rules of the Catholic church so started his own, with him and royal successors as the boss.

In Henrys time, the church was already almost 1500 years old and did not owe its origins to anything connected with the church at Rome.

These developments amount to creating a new church no more or less than saying that your (RC)church was created by the Vatican II council of a half-century ago. After all, many changes in policy were made at that time, so we might say that your church was a new church then, different from the one that came before it.

Henry remained a Catholic until his death and was never declared to be a heretic by the Papacy, not even after the Papal Church finally broke away from the Church of England.

Roman Catholics really should investigate the history before they start talking to us about it.

 

[Major1]

I've been a Christian since I was 14 and am 47 now. In this time I've been Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Seventh Day Baptist and attended other denominations before I finally committed myself to becoming an Anglican Catholic.
The word Catholic basically means united in the body of Christ, the Universal Church. Each denomination has a name but even the most Protestant denominations will admit they are Catholic when they know what the word means.
I am now a Catholic but this doesn't change the nature of my religion. I am still a Christian and always will be one. Just look at my profile and you'll see I have Christian under religion and Anglican under my avatar. Also, Anglicans are both Catholic and Protestant. We do not have any special doctrines (e.g., pet doctrines). We were part of the Protestant reformation, the church that translated and published the King James Bible, and yet we are also Catholic. All Christians are Catholic.

Personally, I think you need to do a little more study on your understanding of this.
But that is just me.

 

[Fidelibus]

In Henrys time, the church was already almost 1500 years old and did not owe its origins to anything connected with the church at Rome.

I know I asked you this once before Albion, but you never showed any proof, so I'll ask again. If this is true, could you please show any ancient pre- Reformation records or documentations of the Church of England to back up this claim? Maybe a chronological list of Bishops that can be traced back to the time of Jesus and His Apostles? Or maybe any documentations showing the Church of Englands shared beliefs of the Early Church Fathers like that of the Catholic Church?

 

[Albion]

I know I asked you this once before Albion, but you never showed any proof, so I'll ask again. If this is true, could you please show any ancient pre- Reformation records or documentations of the Church of England to back up this claim?

Of course. Read Eusebius, the Venerable Bede, the Magna Carta, the five ROMAN CATHOLIC councils of the Middle Ages which referred to the English church as the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world. Consult any historian. Here is what the well-regarded historian Williston Walker writes in his book, The History of the Christian Church:

"Christianity had existed in Britain even before the conversion of Constantine. There seems to have been a Celtic Christianity, closely related to that of Roman Gaul, in the west of England from a fairly early date. Glastonbury, in particular...was apparently a primitive Christian holy place. Christianity also existed in the towns and villas of the Roman occupation. Three Latin-speaking British bishops were present at the Council of Arles (314)."

 

[Major1]

[Staff edit].

I will respond to ONE of your questions which was...….

"So, once again Maj1, my question to you is ..... with what I've posted above, are you still sticking with your belief that when a Scripture passage say's "All" it literally means "All" in every instance with no chance of an exception? If so, your explanation would be greatly appreciated, then we could move on to another one of your comments of post #52. Thanks. "

I understand you need to make the word "ALL" something other than EVERYTHING.

[Staff edit].

Of course, when one digs into this conundrum, what is then learned is that the word "ALL" is understood by the context by which it is used.

Mark 1:5...…………
"And there went out to him ALL the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem and were ALL baptized in the river Jordan"

Now does that mean every single man woman and child in the land came out and got baptized????
Common, logical sense along with context demands that there was a great number of people who came out, and ALL who did come out were baptized.

John 8:2...……….
"And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and ALL the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them."

Multitudes of people came to him; for so the universal particle all must be expounded in a multitude of Scriptures which is again demanded by context to mean a large number of people.

The context should always to be understood for a qualifier.

Romans 5:17-18 …………….
"For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
(18) Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

The first underlined "all men" in verse 18 does mean every individual, because there is no qualifier in the context. The second underlined "all men" in verse 18 is qualified by the phrase "those who receive" in verse 17. The second ALL here clearly means "all of a group" rather than "every individual".

So then we address what you are really wanting to attack and that is Romans 3:23.....
"ALL have sinned and come short of the Approval of God".

Augustine explained Adam’s transmission of his sin to us with a teaching known as “FEDERAL HEADSHIP,” a view held by most evangelical scholars. Augustine taught the concept of “inherited guilt,” that we all sinned “in Adam”: when Adam “voted” for sin, he acted as our representative. His sin was thus imputed or credited to the entire human race—we were all declared “guilty” for Adam’s one sin.

 

[Major1]

[Staff edit].

I do.... as a brother of person that has mental limitations, the term you used..."mentally retarded" is so inappropriate.

For years and years, Mentally retarded was a medical diagnosis and since I am years and years old it is something I grew up with.

I was well have had relatives who is you like the term better...….."Intellectually disadvantaged", that is fine with me.

I meant no harm by the use of the word so please do not look for one.

 

[bbbbbbb]

For years and years, Mentally retarded was a medical diagnosis and since I am years and years old it is something I grew up with.

I was well have had relatives who is you like the term better...….."Intellectually disadvantaged", that is fine with me.

I meant no harm by the use of the word so please do not look for one.

Actually, in the nineteenth century and before these individuals were called lunatics. The word stems from the Latin luna, which is moon, and the belief was that the moon had influenced their mental state (e.g. they were born in the wrong phase of the moon).

 

[Mountainmike]

Read iraneus.
Discover the church which recognised the primacy of and listed of the bishops of Rome, saying their lay true doctrine, Listed in their entireity by Augustine. Heralded in Isaiah, and the office of keys.
" So speaks Peter" said the assembled bishops on recipt of the tome of Leo.
And so on.

There were no other donminations prior to orthodox splitting away until the reformation.

The origin of all others, can be traced to the reformation, including yours.
As can false doctrines such as calvins OSAs

You are right, that it is the Catholic Church not the Roman Catholic Church. But Roman is a name you call it.
It calls itself Just catholic.

[Staff edit].

When Henry declared himself head of the church, and stated the authority of the pope had no validity in England, then persecuting Catholics, In favour of his latter day religion... he broke the chain, So he was no longer Catholic, whatever he believed. You do know he was excommunicated do you? After numerous last chances.

And as you see without the anchor of true church, Anglicanism has fractured into many populist pieces, more all the time. The house divided that cannot stand.
It's why I left.

They were not referring to the Roman Catholic Church or to the Papal Church or to the Church of Rome, however. As has been explained here by others, the reference to Catholic was to the authentic church then still united, East and West, as opposed to the many Gnostic and other sects of the time which had some very unorthodox beliefs about Christ, God, and the Church.


It is part of the legal name of the church, however.



That's what Roman Catholics like to say, just as they want all the rest of the Christian world to be called non-Catholic and their churches not even called churches but, instead, ecclesial communities.

In short, the self-satisfying jargon that your denomination likes to use is fine when you are in your church. Other denominations have their own kind of talk that they like to use, too. But that means nothing elsewhere.


In Henrys time, the church was already almost 1500 years old and did not owe its origins to anything connected with the church at Rome.

These developments amount to creating a new church no more or less than saying that your (RC)church was created by the Vatican II council of a half-century ago. After all, many changes in policy were made at that time, so we might say that your church was a new church then, different from the one that came before it.

Henry remained a Catholic until his death and was never declared to be a heretic by the Papacy, not even after the Papal Church finally broke away from the Church of England.

Roman Catholics really should investigate the history before they start talking to us about it.