What is the one true Church?
- Thread starter RR144
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is not permitted in CyB.
But its Ok as long as one is attacking Catholics.
Reporting David NJ is a waste of time.
Matthew 5:10
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Lucky for David NJ, invincible ignorance gets him off the hook.
What is the one true church? The one that is persecuted.
Last edited:
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Holy Spirit Truth
"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works."
Philip James
Well-Known Member
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Churches are persecuted because they reflect the character of Christ. It has nothing to do with doctrine or history, although doctrine shows the way to God's character. Judge for yourself who is displaying Godly character. Then ask, are they being persecuted and attacked?
"Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness sake."
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
If you DENY it happened, then you don't understand it.
Then the Bible is wrong???
There is no verse that says, "Peter is the pope", the cumulative evidence for his leadership is powerful. You've been bulldozed with evidence you refuse to see.
BofL said no such thing. Use the quote feature and stop making stuff up.
We don't. The CC is formed first and foremost on Jesus Christ, the CC didn't pull the doctrine of the the papacy out of thin air. Scripture and history is on our side; subjective revisionism is on yours.
You are playing stupid word games to justify your denials.
But Jesus didn't do it that way, did He. Mary Magdalene is regarded as one of the greatest saints next to Mary, but neither of them were priests or Apostles. Your anti-leader animus has you confused.
"Anybody who knows much about church history knows why Catholic apologists appeal so often to development of doctrine."
We appeal to it because it is an undeniable historical fact. If Grailhunter accepts development of trinitarianism or the canon of the New Testament, then it is not improper for us to accept development of the papacy, or Marian doctrines, etc.
Grailhunter locates the difference of principle in alleged lack vs. abundance of biblical support. We assert that we have biblical (as well as patristic) support for our views. Grailhunter disagrees. But the criterion for him — when his view is closely scrutinized — reduces to mere subjectivism according to his preconceived notions, ("it didn't happen") whereas for the Catholic it is historically demonstrable unbroken apostolic Tradition, developed over 2000 years. In any event, the controversy cannot be settled by a disdain for the very concept of development (which seems implied above), as if it were improper to utilize it at all in the discussion of historical theology.
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
The Catholic Church has long been an outspoken voice on behalf of climate change. The late cardinal Pell however was at odds with this, and was as equally outspoken.
Note what the cardinal said... Climate change science has become a pseudo-religion. Yet the Catholic Church supported this pseudo-religion ... Is it a true religion? Has the science, so called, of climate change become the "one true church", especially when one considered the comments from some political leaders in government of recent times... "We are the only source of truth". The current pope has said such things recently, it seems all who are now devoid of common sense are at least speaking from the same playbook. Is this the unity the Pope seeks from the world religions? To agree on climate change?
On the other hand, and just to prove cardinal Pell's words, we have the following....
Note what the cardinal said... Climate change science has become a pseudo-religion. Yet the Catholic Church supported this pseudo-religion ... Is it a true religion? Has the science, so called, of climate change become the "one true church", especially when one considered the comments from some political leaders in government of recent times... "We are the only source of truth". The current pope has said such things recently, it seems all who are now devoid of common sense are at least speaking from the same playbook. Is this the unity the Pope seeks from the world religions? To agree on climate change?
On the other hand, and just to prove cardinal Pell's words, we have the following....
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
True faith in the Risen Christ has no need nor desire for a crucifix.
True faith in the Risen Christ rejects idols.
True faith in the Risen Christ has no need of the works of men's hands.
Speaking of 'black'
"These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever."
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Did not say the Bible is wrong.
The Bible does not call Peter a leader. It would be simple enough if that were true. The Bible does not specifically call anybody a leader....it is in the storyline.
If other Apostles were coming to him to make decisions....if he was sending out decrees.
But then again all of the Apostles were leaders.
But the ones that stand out in the leadership roles were James and Paul.
There were several Apostles and we do not know exactly what they all did. What we have are the central characters of the storyline in the Bible. Was Peter special? Absolutely. Did he hold the title of Pope? Absolutely not. Did he sign 1st and 2nd Peter as Pope Peter? Absolutely Not. Did anyone address him as Pope Peter in the Bible? Absolutely not.
Again find where he is called Pope Peter in the Bible. Out of thin air....more like a tradition developed....then people started back dating titles for the purpose of suggesting a church structure before it existed and trying to suggest an authoritative connection to Christ through Peter.
You are saying he was leader....the words would be good. The words are not there nor the storyline.
Not anti-leader the bible identifies the leaders of the Apostles and it was not Peter.
My objection is that you are saying something that is not in the Bible.
And you are discussing this with someone that is not Bible only. I believe that God continued to speak to people and work with people and Miriam delivered messages and performed miracles. I believe that the Holy Spirit continued to teach Christians in many ways.
But at the heart of this focus on Peter is the lust for power and authority and control and it was the Church's undoing. All of the horrors and corruption of the Catholic Church stem from this and were made possible from this.
As I have said several times the modern Catholic Church is better than it has ever been. But in modern times they do not have the power to form teams that torture people or burn people at the stake or attack others because they believe differently.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
There was nothing wrong with his outspokenness because it was 6 years before LAUDATO SI’. Had he been outspoken after LAUDATO SI’, he would have been another schizmatic.
Lucky for you, he's dead.
Contrary to your 'dominating dictator' image of the papacy, cardinals and theologians are free to think for themselves.
You can't go along with the flow of the discussion because your diabolical view of the papacy is at odds with the context of our rebuttals to Grailhunter, so you throw in 2 stupid OFF TOPIC pdf graphics for the sole purpose of derailing the thread.
Another one of you dishonest fabrications that you can't prove with reliable quotes.
The Pope is not interested in unity with world religions, he wants world religions to stop killing in the name of God. He can only operate within the confines of any diplomat, and the world doesn't care what he says anyway.
The University of Helsinki is not a Catholic university, and The Guardian has an anti-Catholic agenda.
You are a forum TROLL.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Then you are no different from Seventh Day Adventism with their distorted histories and a myriad of misrepresentations.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Jesus knew Peter would betray Him. Yet is was still peters choice, and Jesus, being the loving Savior He is, would have been doing all He could to strengthen Peter against such an event, and if Peter did fail the test, he would say least remember Jesus' love and solicitude toward a wayward sinner such as himself.
This was after Peters fall. Jesus was encouraging Peter that despite his failure, Jesus still wanted him to serve as a shepherd in his church. Just as Jesus wanted all the disciples to serve likewise. Nothing there about leadership.
This was when Jesus was warning Peter that he would deny Him. Jesus was not putting Peter in charge of anything...he wasn't even converted.
Because Peter was the first person he came across on the beach at Galilee? Along with Andrew, but what likely drew Christ's attention because he was a loudmouth.
Same order they were found and became disciples. No big deal.
Leader? In charge?? This is but another encouragement for Peter after his great denial which he without doubt he was still feeling great guilt. Jesus was encouraging him and specifically including him, singling him out, in order to defeat any feelings of discouragement and doubts regarding Jesus' willingness to forgive.
Precociousness.
Could be any number of reasons. Trying to prove himself to the others that he has recovered from his depression and was eager to serve? Filled with the holy Spirit and led to do what we are all lead to do? Preach the gospel? Nothing there to suggest being in charge.
No idea. Wasn't he the clerk at the desk taking the count? Does that mean he was in charge? Most institutions I know the clerk was at the bottom, the tail, not the head. Just thinking out loud.
No idea. Man on the spot.
That's interesting. I never knew that. But it only has significance if you apply significance to all the others as well... And I don't.
All that said though, maybe he was in charge and took the lead for a time of the church in Jerusalem, taking the gospel to the Jews. Paul was at the lead of mission work taking the gospel to the Gentiles. There were numerous others doing great work for the Lord during those early years. Apollos. Bartholomew. Timothy. Paul. Mark. Thomas. There is no hint anywhere in scripture or history that links Peter to any headship or authority over any of the other apostles or disciples, not over any of the hundreds of church groups that sprang up throughout the known world. Nor did such an authority become apparent until many decades later, and the so called succession you speak of was a late invention to justify papal superiority and power.
Roman Catholicism has a virtually identical view of divine revelation as did apostate Judaism in the days of Christ. The three elements of a sacred deposit, a transmitting mechanism and an authoritative living interpreter are all present in both systems. Strikingly, the terminology is virtually identical as well (Tradition, handed down, passed on, received, hold, unbroken succession, etc).
In both systems the oral traditions supposedly go back to an original source. In the case of the Jews, that source was Moses; in the case of the Roman Catholic Church it was Peter. Amazingly, the Pope speaks ex-cathedra and his word is considered infallible and final. When the rabbis spoke from Moses= kathedra, their word was considered infallible and final as well.
In both systems the oral tradition and the written word were given equal authority and in some cases oral tradition even transcended the authority of the written word. In Judaism, the people were expected to render implicit and unquestioning submission to the theological views of the scholars. Any divergence was swiftly punished with expulsion from the synagogue. In Roman Catholicism the same is true. Any disagreement with the theological cadre is punished with excommunication. In fact, even theologians who disagree with the magisterium are defrocked from their teaching positions, as can be seen, for example, in the case of Hans Kung. By controlling the magisterium, Satan can control the masses.
And the condemnation of the Pharisees in upholding tradition and making the observations thereof mandatory for the masses, applies no less to the Catholic Church where their traditions make null and void the sacred written word of God.
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Mmmm. So long as that freedom remains within the confines of received tradition. They are free to their opinion on the Bible, because changes in biblical understanding can be altered according to tradition, in catholicism at least. But cross the magisterium, and follow the example of Hans Kung.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
"But at the heart of this focus on Peter is the lust for power and authority and control and it was the Church's undoing. All of the horrors and corruption of the Catholic Church stem from this and were made possible from this." I hear this constantly from Brokelight, Barney Fife, Barney Bright, Adventagous and every SDA member in here. Demonizing the Church and the Papacy is built into SDA doctrines. You sound just like them.
If you think you are a Catholic, you are not anymore. If you want to be a Catholic, you need to talk about your doubts with a priest. A holy one, not a modernist, because I suspect you've swallowed up modernism, the synthesis of all heresies. You've repudiated revealed truths thus separating yourself from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You refuse to accept development of the papacy but accept development of the canon. That only makes sense to a Protestant. You ignore us every time we expose your shallow denials that defy reason.
"But in modern times they do not have the power to form teams that torture people or burn people at the stake or attack others because they believe differently." This is the mantra of ignorant paranoid fundamentalists, who assert historical events like the headline of a cheap tabloid, never giving the whole story. Doesn't everyone "know" the church slaughtered the entire population of Europe 2 times over??? Their assertions are as stupid and empty as your ridiculous summary.
"teams that torture people or burn people at the stake or attack others because they believe differently." are serious sins, not church policy. I don't think you know the difference.
You have deliberately cultivated voluntary doubt by eating up modernism that any "theologian" worth his salt would know what that entails, but you are so good at denials you convince yourself your right.
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
* Hope
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
With that said, you cannot, in good conscience, receive Holy Communion, because you refuse to be in communion. It's NOT a mere bread and wine ritual, as you have previously stated. I'm pleading with you, please, talk to a priest about your doubts, get right with the Church, stop your juvenile rebellion, and get what you are supposed to get by receiving the Eucharist worthily.
Your denial of the doctrine of the papacy puts you in the same camp as the SDA, the JW"s and ignorant fundamentalists.
Do you have any idea yet of what I'm talking about???
Last edited:
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome, where the term was used from the beginning of the Church in Rome.
Judges 17:10; 18:19 – priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.
The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” =Gk. pappas = English: pope.
1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” =Gk. pappas = English: pope.
Philemon 10 – Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus. "father = Gk. pappas
You can't find pope in the Bible???
No doubt about that. Moses foreshadowed Christ. But Christ had not yet established the papacy. The closest OT foreshadow of the papacy is in Isaiah 22 but you'll deny that anyway.
Why does there have to be??? Do you know of any approved Marian apparition that denies the papacy? And who do you think gives final approval, after extensive investigation, to authentic apparitions (that you have studied) in the first place???
Slap yourself, you are the one claiming pope is not in the Bible.
That is a lie. You have no evidence Peter did not believe. You confuse cowardice with faithlessness, just like you confuse Peter's lack of understanding with teaching.
Cite in the scriptures Trinity or Incarnation. Your word games are juvenile.
His family were the kids He grew up with. It's no wonder the few of them didn't believe. John the Baptist was in His family too.
Mark1:19 Jesus went on a little farther. He saw James and his brother John who were sons of Zebedee. They were in a boat mending their nets. 20 Jesus called them and they left their father Zebedee. He (James) was in the boat with men who were working for him.
So you conveniently deny keys represent authority because nobody can see it in motion? Do you know what materialism means?
Abraham and Moses were never called "leader", does that prove they never took a leadership role? Your word games are childish.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Telling the truth is not demonizing the Catholic Church....and you do not have live in denial or live a fantasy to be Catholic. I worship with the Catholics and the Protestants. I do not refuse to accept the development of the papacy when it actually occurred. There is nothing wrong with the structure of the Catholic Church.....but it did not occur in early Christianity.
Not all Catholics do this....but it is like the Jehovah's Witnesses...their whole religion requires them to deny reality and history and even the scriptures....it is something I do not have to do because I focus on the truth.
I do not recognize the Church's perceived authority in such matters as the Bread and Wine ritual.
I never said that the Bread and Wine Ritual was a mere anything....I explained in detail that it is a miraculous event. But the Bread and Wine Ritual is not governed by the Catholic Church. The Church's mission is to preach the Word of God and minster to Christians, not rule over them. This lust for power and authority has always been the stumbling block for the Catholic Church and led it down a very dark path.
You mean the Catholic numbering system....Catechism?
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Close....πατήρ (patēr)
This term was used long before the Pope was coined.....a term of endearment and respect.
Pappas or Papas (Greek: Παππάς, Παπάς) is a Greek surname, which means "priest"
I do not know of any Marian event that denies the papacy or endorses it. That is why I asked you. I know that people have been put through the wringer by the Church investigating such events.
And it is not just Peter. They were not at the cross or the tomb and their first thought was that Christ was a ghost.....not resurrected.
The word Trinity is not in the scriptures for a very good reason.
Different James
Like I said the scriptures do not call them leaders. Abraham, Moses, James, and Paul are defined as leaders by the storyline.
Peter was an Apostle...all Apostles were leaders respectively, but he was not the leader of Apostles.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
That’s an impotent response.
You’re saying that what Jesus told Peter conveyed Supreme Authority – but He was just “kidding”??
And I’ve given it to you multiple times:
Jesus singled out Peter – and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19).
Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32).
Why would that tell me ANYTHING??
People aren’t allowed to change? A change of heart is the ENTIRE basis of the Gospel message.
Weak argument . . .
Similar threads
