Whoa there.......Pontiff

[JoelH]

Catholic history cannot be trusted.
Those that don't trust the scriptures (sola scriptura) but replace it with trust in the man made religion of Rome (church alone) are setting themselves up for defeat.
I will always choose God's Word over any religion.

I think a lot of us seem to want to have it both ways on this issue: first, we want the Catholic church to abandon the "One true church" stance and then we also want it to not to get into the ecumenical forming One World religion. We fail to recognize that those Catholic clergy members who claim we-Protestants-are-just-fine-as-Christian-well (while having no desire to leave their own Catholic church) are precisely the same characters who jump onto the Fatima peace kumbaya bandwagon.

There is no such thing as rejecting the Fatima madness while keeping the you-Protestants-are-fine position within the Catholic church. (If they had they wouldn't be Catholic anymore, would they)

[Kliska]

Ironically as a Bible-believing Christian, I think it is good for Benedict XVI to give this pronouncement. This shows that

1. The Catholic church is not compromising on its core doctrines and trying to join in ecumenical kumbaya;

2. I can respect and disagree with someone who holds to that organization's traditional/agreed doctrinal stance.

Mind you, it is always the orthodox Catholic belief that us Proddies "are very likely to be heading straight to hell". There is no more muddling of "liberal Catholics" (the Catholic side does not distinguish between the Catholics who listened to the Holy Spirit who led them to a whole world of inspiration and Jesus and those who preach universalism: they are both considered liberals within the Catholic church)

Good for the pope to give this pronouncement.

I definitely agree with you on most of this Joel. And the thing is, I've seen what pushing this pronouncement has wrought on certain RC's who have a gut instinct (Spirit nudge) that something the pope is saying just isn't right. Those RC's that have been around Protestants and felt the Spirit and the Truth working through those Protestants. These are RC's who know we too are indeed part of the One True Church; not the RC, but the ekklesia, which is made up of all who are in Christ.

[Kliska]

:heythere Hi Hope,

The thing I keep going back to, in all of this, is that those "early church fathers" are from the 300's - 400's, whereas the scriptures contained in the Bible are much much older, and closer to events. So, when we compare scripture to later writings, and they disagree, we should go with scripture.

It would be like someone in 2100 writing about things from 1776. I would never choose something someone wrote in 2100 over something an eyewitness wrote in 1776, or 1806 say.

[Hope]

Hi Kliska, I posted the Augustine concerning the oneness of the Church. Here are much earlier quotes (I had used Augustine because everyone knows of him).

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

"For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians,3(A.D. 110),in ANF,3:80

You had said:

The thing I keep going back to, in all of this, is that those "early church fathers" are from the 300's - 400's, whereas the scriptures contained in the Bible are much much older, and closer to events. So, when we compare scripture to later writings, and they disagree, we should go with scripture.


As you can see, these quotes I have provided are VERY VERY early. As a matter of fact Ignatius sat under the tutelage of John the Apostle. It is very easy to see in writing the writings of our Christian ancestors that the Church was ONE unit, and that those outside of that unit were considered schismatics.

It would be like someone in 2100 writing about things from 1776. I would never choose something someone wrote in 2100 over something an eyewitness wrote in 1776, or 1806 say.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

Neither would I do that, Kliska. Why would I read a 20th century author's perspective on Christian history and what the early church was like and what they believed when I can read their writings for myself?

Blessings,

Hope

[Kliska]

Neither would I do that, Kliska. Why would I read a 20th century author's perspective on Christian history and what the early church was like and what they believed when I can read their writings for myself?

The earliest writings, seen to be divinely inspired are in the Bible. Everything after that is tradition/teaching, which has it's place, but cannot be trusted to be inerrant. Do you realize how quick teaching could be twisted? Paul's message was twisted within years of his preaching it, and he had to try to correct it within his own lifetime, as recorded in the Bible. Keep in mind, these are people Paul directly taught, so, they too learned at an apostle's feet, and got it wrong. There is no evidence in the pages of the Bible that Peter was the grand high apostle, who dictated church teaching; quite the opposite.

The thing is as well; we don't dispute that there will be preachers, teachers, deacons, etc... leading the church on earth, with Christ as it's real Head and High Priest, and High Bishop; that's biblical. You note who these various early fathers learned under and hence, you must realize in the beginning, there was no one organizational body. The Roman church was not The Church, it was a church in Rome. The different apostles went and established different organizational churches, with their own leaders. The Church, the One True Church, is the ekklesia, ALL believers, not the church at Rome.

The quote from Clement, I don't really have a prob with, as I said, we believe in church leaders, just not any that claim to be head of the Church itself. After that, we are starting to get later and later; I don't really have a prob with anything Ignatius said in his quote you gave, but I do think he's giving men alone a bit too much power. The unity of the True Church I do believe in, again, that True Church just isn't the one in Rome. Again, if a teaching of anyone in the church goes against scripture, regardless of who they learned under, scripture has the greater weight.

[JoelH]

In Paul's letters to the Galatians he was already rebutting tendencies in various local churches at the time when he was still on earth. Can you believe that everything Clement or Ignatius said were inerrant? This is why their writings are irrelevant as far as our sources of doctrines are concerned.

And even if we take a step back, there are good reasons to be skeptical whether the writings of the "church fathers" are genuine. About 50% of Ignatius's writings that are considered binding in doctrine for the Catholic church have been found to be forgeries.

[true2yeshua]

Very well said, Doxiemom. I really hope things change rapidly for the ones that are lost in all this. I pray that my family wakes up.....I pray always for the Holy Spirit to Minister their heart. They have left their First Love, and not even sure some of them, ever met Jesus at all. But, they go to Mass. :pray

RachealsDream,:heythere

You have summarized my heart beautifully for those in RCC. What is most hurtful to me is that RCCs will not grant an ear to my sincerest desire to share scripture with them. I love Jesus SO much and their son has been born again since 2001, but they just won't listen. :crying

My mil, my fil not so much, hated when my husband married me, a Baptist. I do not like labels - I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ who happens to be a baptist.

Having never met Jesus - that is what breaks my heart the most. My mil would, occasionally, tolerate Sunday Service with us, but always moaned 'he goes on too long'. She has not the least desire in reading a Bible. Always says, 'I'm a good Catholic'. I tell her, as has her dear gd, none of us are good, but it doesn't 'get through'.

My fil, listened to the Bible on CD we gave him a few years back, but returned it to us. Frankly, imo, it's because he couldn't stand to be bereated by my mil about listening to it. But, he was growing in his knowledge and used to phone me up and ask ?, it was great. My heart takes solace in God's promise that His Word will not return void, and will accomplish the purpose for which He sent it forth.

The do not attend mass. I pray, with tears, often that they will encounter Jesus Christ and the beautiful life He gives His Children. :ohno

Shalom in Christ
___________________________
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem :pray :israel

[true2yeshua]

3. Jesus is still praying for the unity of the universal church. He asked in John 17 that the Father would make His followers one. He was not praying that we would all join the same denomination, submit to the same pope or agree on every minor point of doctrine. His goal is that one day we will drop our selfish pride, competition and religious agendas so that we can cooperate across denominational lines to build His kingdom.

We will one day soon - the Rapture.

In another thread I just wrote how difficult it is to find a church, in our area, today that is sound. Gone are the days of the 1st Century Church where everyone knew what everyone else believed - for they believed likewise - and it was the Bible, the Lord's Supper (Communion) and a time of fellowship, praise and edification. Can't wait until we are all truly One Body in Christ; yet, the cynic in me just can not see it happening until the Lord's return. :ohno



Catholics who love Jesus :fish more than they love the pope and their religious tradition should swiftly denounce his error.


They can't, can they? Don't know as I'm not an RCC, but isn't it true that whatever he says goes?

Informative post - thx! :hug

Shalom in Christ
_____________________________
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem :pray :israel

[Hope]

Hi Kliska,

First you said, It would be like someone in 2100 writing about things from 1776. I would never choose something someone wrote in 2100 over something an eyewitness wrote in 1776, or 1806 say.

and then you said,

Everything after that is tradition/teaching, which has it's place, but cannot be trusted to be inerrant.

Let me be clear: I do not view historical documents or writings of the early Christians to be inerrent. They are what they are, historical letters that shed light on what the early church was and what they believed PERIOD. This threads OP suggests that Pope Benedict said something completely new and outrageous, offensive and unkind. I have proven through just a few samples of excerpts from our Christian ancestors that he has NOT said anything new AT ALL, but even is rather soft in his rhetoric compared to Augustine and others.

The contention by some on this thread the Church forged ALL of these documents is just patently absurb. The same people that wrote these letters were also the handlers of the epistles. How could you trust they didn't tamper with those as well?

Do you really think that early church was comprised of a bunch of autonomous churches? Do you think there were methodists, and baptists, and presbyterians, nondenominational, etc etc?

If that was indeed the church structure from the onset, I dare say the enemy would have completely devoured it by now, because as Jesus said: "A house divided WILL NOT STAND."

[true2yeshua]

My father in-law is also a Catholic and he had a fit when my husband started to date me, a little protestant girl. But through the years he has really grown to like me...I think I may have helped change some of his harsh opinions about protestants. But it sure is hard to witness to someone like him. In his day stepping into a protestant church was sin and as we all know if they miss mass they're told they'll go to hell.

:ohno Same in our family. When my dh married me, a Baptist, my mil about had a coronary! It's so sad.

They will not acknowledge that it is Jesus Christ who has so profoundly changed their son...(from the stories share of my dh years ago, I would not have known him as the man I met and fell in love with). It's heartbreaking. We pray the Lord reveal Himself to them.

Shalom in Christ
____________________________
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem :pray :israel