Catholicism & Christianity

[Villager]

Because it was the oral tradition that the Christian communities compared the writings to to see if they were acceptable. The acceptance of the NT is a result of oral tradition.

True as far as the gospels are concerned. Some of the teaching must have originated with the written word.

The very notion of Sola Scriptura is self defeating because the choice of what is to be scripture is non-scriptural.

That's not what sola Scriptura means. It refers to the status of Scripture for the church, not on what goes into Scripture or the criteria used in deciding Scripture. There is no disagreement on the NT canon anyway.

But not all of it.

Of course not, but as no-one knows what the unwritten lore was, it's irrelevant.

The Pope isn't of any special advantage.

Then he can be dispensed with in the interest of unity.

He is there because Christ declared an earthly head for the Church in Peter and those that are Peter's successors.

But Christ obviously did not mean for this to be of any special advantage. A nominal figurehead, evidently.

Because it is protected by God from falling into a level of doctrinal error

Not by its pope. So by what means is the RCC superior to all the others who claim that they also are protected by God from falling into a level of doctrinal error?

Where? and in what way?

The Tridentine canons indicate that believers in sola fide are anathema. That puts every Protestant organisation under ban.

I said both physical and spiritual death are a consequence of sin.

Not so. I asked: So what was the sin of those who deserved to die?

You replied: Everyone deserves to die. "The wages of sin is death".

Which is about spiritual death, Paul's context, which is way out of context here. Spiritual death, which fate Herr Ratzinger is totally unable to allot to anyone at all.

And, thank God, he is unable to burn bodies. But it was not always like that, and the very same reasons for burning are with Ratzinger today, but he is powerless to burn offenders. So maybe God is not on his side, and never was.

Catholic Church existed back then too

One can dream, I suppose.

Society, technology, literature, art, etc.

God is not really interested in that, but by worldly standards, medieval output was unbelievably stunted, jejune and formulaic, and much restricted in scope– largely because of the RCC and its paranoid control-freakery. So the RCC was a failure in the sight of God, and in the sight of man, too. It mainly served to keep rich a few mostly despicable men who, from the records, would have been better hanged, imv. A sordid and regrettable era indeed.

I think you know what civilisation is.

True. Very true indeed. Ignorance, superstition, filthy hovels, extortion, mendacity, threats, censorship, exploitation and violence mean that Catholicism does not get past its gate, if I have anything to do with it. Not a chance.

Is God's word limited to the Canon and everything else the Devil's word?

In the terms of this discussion, that relates to faith-defining documents, yes. So 'deuterocanon' means 'of the devil'. Without even opening it.

Is Christianity a democracy?

I wrote that Protestantism led to democracy, to independence of thought; led to the freedom of people to express themselves. Readers who value their freedom can in some part thank Christians for it. Catholicism, otoh, has a long, long history of opposition to democracy, so no thanks are appropriate in that direction.

the Pope doesn't claim to be the King, the Pope is the King's steward.

But as he is of no special advantage, he may as well be one of the water carriers.

So Jesus, far away in heaven, is the Catholic king, and Catholics can do exactly as they please. Which is what they accuse Protestants of doing.

 

[Kathryn]

What a bunch of horse hooey.

 

[Mister Emu]

True as far as the gospels are concerned. Some of the teaching must have originated with the written word.

True, but it had to mesh with the oral tradition... which is the opposite way of how protestants handle things. The written portion of sacred Tradition is authoritative. So is the oral portion. They are both part of the Apostolic deposit of faith.

It refers to the status of Scripture for the church, not on what goes into Scripture or the criteria used in deciding Scripture.

So... sola scriptura isn't the idea that scripture is the sole authority for the church?

Of course not, but as no-one knows what the unwritten lore was, it's irrelevant.

Why do you think we don't know what it is? It was passed down through the generations, it is those doctrine and practices shared by the orthodox and catholic churches that aren't in the Bible.

The trinity for instance, is a traditional understanding of Christ's nature that relies somewhat on the non-written tradition of Christianity.

Then he can be dispensed with in the interest of unity.

Nothing Christ gave us can be dispensed with. The interest of faithfulness to God go before those of unity.

Christ appointed Peter and his successors to be the earthly head of the Church.

So by what means is the RCC superior to all the others who claim that they also are protected by God from falling into a level of doctrinal error?

It is the Church founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. No other Church is that church.

The Tridentine canons indicate that believers in sola fide are anathema. That puts every Protestant organisation under ban.

Cardinal Bellarmine specifically argues against that interpretation. The Tridentine canons do not refer to sincere protestants.

One can dream, I suppose.

I suppose one can dream that the early Roman Church is somehow substantively different from the Roman Catholic Church.

God is not really interested in that

I didn't say He was.

y worldly standards, medieval output was unbelievably stunted, jejune and formulaic, and much restricted in scope– largely because of the RCC and its paranoid control-freakery.

That is early modern myth, passed around so as to be "common knowledge", in the same category as the idea that sailors on Columbus's ship thought the earth was flat.

In the terms of this discussion, that relates to faith-defining documents, yes.

Good to know that every theological treatise ever written is of the devil. Luther's 97 theses, the Westminster confession, the Nicene Creed... all of the devil.

So 'deuterocanon' means 'of the devil'. Without even opening it.

Even though Jesus referred to it and it was in the Bibles used by the earliest Christians?

I wrote that Protestantism led to democracy, to independence of thought; led to the freedom of people to express themselves.

Personally, I'd argue that a desire for freedom and independence of thought led to the Protestant reformation and not the other way around... but that is beside the point.

Is independence of thought a good thing, in terms of Christianity? Is any of Westboro, Moonies, "Ultra"-Calvinism good? Is it good Biblically? The Bible says "a man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition reject". If someone disagrees with what the Apostles taught, you kick them out. You don't say "oh that's ok, independent thought, free expression and all."

So Jesus, far away in heaven, is the Catholic king, and Catholics can do exactly as they please. Which is what they accuse Protestants of doing.

You have to admit we are right about protestants doing whatever they please though , you can find a denomination to support just about anything. You can also find some that are for the most part sound in traditional principles.

 

[Quiddity]

Wousers villager, you've got some hardcore anti-catholicism in your blood.

 

[krsnaraja]

When will this religious debate ever ends? In other words, the more posts a thread receive the longer the debate was resolve or not at all. Just take a look at the threads here with the largest number of posts. It means the debate has taken forever for antagonists to settle their differences. See. There`s nothing you can get from religious debates except wasting one`s time because nobody ever concedes.

 

[Renji]

No. Oral lore became Scripture except when it originated as Scripture. That happened long before heretics formed the RCC.


It declares that there is a canon, but does not have the nerve to put its own teachings into it. Because nobody would believe it is the church if it tried to do so. Tradition = devil's teaching, too.

2 Thessalonians 2:15- So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

(If there are 30 000 varieties of Protestantism, is it because Satan fears sola fide and sola Scriptura 30 000 times more than he fears the RCC? )

Then let's see what the Bible says about unity/ being one, especially in the matters of faith:

"Striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" Eph 4:3-6

 

[Mister Emu]

No. Oral lore became Scripture except when it originated as Scripture.

Some of it did, not all.

That happened long before heretics formed the RCC.

The Catholic Church at Rome was founded before the first Gospel was written.

Then why is it not canon?

It is! It is called the New Testament.

Tradition = devil's teaching, too.

Not according to God's inspired writer Paul. "Hold to the Traditions you were taught, whether by mouth or by letter." Seems for your talk of Sola Scriptura, you reject what the Bible says when convenient. To put it in terms you use: Sola Scriptura, non-existent in the Bible and directly contradicting the inspired writing of Paul, is the Devil's teaching.

Because sound wave energy very quickly dissipates as non-directional heat energy and is radiated into space

It is so terrible that humans don't have an organic devices for the reception of sound waves and interpreting them into information, and then later transforming that information into new sound waves.

Who cares.

You don't care about the things God has given us? That is really Christian talk there :sarcasm:

'The Pope isn't of any special advantage.'

Yep, the Pope has no special advantage, but he was given by God to lead the Church.

So Bellarmine was way out on a limb.

Nope, he represents majority understanding of the canons.

Reference is not approbation.

Reference in terms of teaching from certainly is.

There were no bound Bibles then.

Yes, there were.

Well, the RCC has Jesus away in heaven, and Catholics believe everything from Buddhism to atheism, so maybe it's not.

Protestants have their atheists too, no heresy or problem is the sole province of one Church. As well, the Catholic Church as an institution holds fast to the great Christian truths of the divinity of and salvation through Jesus. No honest person could deny that.

If there are 30 000 varieties of Protestantism, is it because Satan fears sola fide and sola Scriptura 30 000 times more than he fears the RCC?

Or it is just a logical result of the individualism of the protestant idea.

Or as many/most of those 30k protestant varieties believe in sola fide and sola scriptura, the devil loves those ideas all the more.

 

[krsnaraja]

The debates in this OP will take sometime to resolve. In between I will entertain you & myself with my favorite songs. This one is dedicated to my daughter Melsa.

[youtube]Pwbowi-8Yoo[/youtube]
Melissa- Allman brothers - YouTube

 

[Villager]

Some of it did, not all.

Which Catholic was there?

The Catholic Church at Rome was founded before the first Gospel was written.

The church at Rome was presumably founded just as soon as the converts made at Pentecost arrived home- if not on the ship back! With several bishops, but of course without Peter, Paul or any of the Twelve. The RCC, or agents of similar character, destroyed it and claimed to be its continuation.

It is! It is called the New Testament.

Wow! Who knew the RC New Testament was so large!

Not according to God's inspired writer Paul. "Hold to the Traditions you were taught, whether by mouth or by letter."

Oh dear, you've not fallen for that old saw, surely? (And where did that capital 'T' come from? You seem to have quoted the KJV, anyway! No wonder Catholics cling to it!)

Here's a classic example of Catholic methodology, based on the desperate word search principle; trawl for words like 'key' and 'tradition', and ignore context and even common sense. Let's look at a modern and respected translation:

'So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.' 2 Thess 2:15 (NIV)

'Traditions' is hardly a suitable translation here anyway, the teachings being comparative novelties to the church, only a few years old.

Seems for your talk of Sola Scriptura, you reject what the Bible says when convenient.

I know I look ancient, but really, I was not in Thessaloniki when Paul hit town. In effect, Paul's message to any and all other saints, including contemporaries, is 'Stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you by letter.' Which principle the RCC rebels against with total shamelessness, as it must, else it would wither and die.

It is so terrible that humans don't have an organic devices for the reception of sound waves and interpreting them into information, and then later transforming that information into new sound waves.

If one supposes that God is a nincompoop, maybe. Otherwise, one may suppose that he ensured that his whole will is contained in Scripture.

It's worse than terrible for the RCC, though, because it makes out that its teaching is the missing oral content; that's going to get it into superheated territory.

You don't care about the things God has given us?

God has given you nothing. Yet.

Oh, I think his eventual rich reward for the RCC will interest everyone. Maybe I'll get to sell tickets.

Yep, the Pope has no special advantage, but he was given by God to lead the Church.

But without any more personal resources than anyone else. Not much of a God!

Nope, he represents majority understanding of the canons.

They wouldn't let him be pope. Perhaps he had too many personal resources! But maybe you can find the place where the canons say that they do not apply to 'sincere Protestants'? I've never been able to find it, nor anyone else of my acquaintance. Protestants the world over would be surprised to learn about this gargantuan error.

Reference in terms of teaching from certainly is.

That depends on the nature of the teaching. What did Jesus allude to that makes any extra-canonical book into a teaching source?

Yes, there were.

Not, as far as is known, at the time of Jesus' ministry, or for centuries after, in terms of significant volume sales. Though it hardly makes any difference, because alien books would have stuck out as horrors, as they do to Christians now.

Protestants have their atheists too

They don't. They have an abundance of hangers-on, who could all be errant Catholics, for all we know.

no heresy or problem is the sole province of one Church.

But there is only one church, remember.

As well, the Catholic Church as an institution holds fast to the great Christian truths of the divinity of and salvation through Jesus.

The RCC blasphemes continuously with every Mass. No theologian can deny that. It's fate will astonish the whole creation.

Or it is just a logical result of the individualism of the protestant idea.

Of course it is. People have to have the freedom to hang themselves. It's divine will.

Or as many/most of those 30k protestant varieties believe in sola fide and sola scriptura, the devil loves those ideas all the more.

That might make sense if more than a handful of them actually believed in sola fide and sola Scriptura.

It's a strange (though perhaps convenient) delusion that 'Protestants' = Christians. It's a big no-no.

 

[krsnaraja]

Another lull another song
-------------------------------

[youtube]C1KtScrqtbc[/youtube]
THE HOLLIES - He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother - YouTube

 

[Muffled]

It does not bother me that Catholics call themselves Christian even though they don't reflect the true meaning of Christianity.

However I have met born-again Catholics who do reflect the true meaning of Christianity. It is simply that their faith had to be found somewhere else because the church doesn't teach it.

Sometimes that can cause problems when the will of the church conflicts with the will of God.

 

[Villager]

I have met born-again Catholics

How can one be born again who goes to Mass to beg for life?

 

[JacobEzra.]

It does not bother me that Catholics call themselves Christian even though they don't reflect the true meaning of Christianity.

YEahhhh, because evengelicals are such saints! LOL

 

[Villager]

evengelicals are such saints! LOL

Many a true word...

 

[krsnaraja]

It does not bother me that Catholics call themselves Christian even though they don't reflect the true meaning of Christianity.

However I have met born-again Catholics who do reflect the true meaning of Christianity. It is simply that their faith had to be found somewhere else because the church doesn't teach it.

Sometimes that can cause problems when the will of the church conflicts with the will of God.

May I ask you a question? What is the month, day & year you were born? You see in the Roman Catholic Calendar there`s for every month, day & year a Catholic was born there`s a corresponding month, day & year a Saint died. Take for example the month, day & year I was born. It`s the death anniversary of St. Martin de Porres of Lima, Peru. The year he was born was in 1579. Similarly, I was born on 1957 ( lotto 4 digit jackpot). & November 3 is the month & day St. Martin died which is the month & day I was born! That I have this notion I`m the reincarnation of St Martin de Porres. If that is the case the Roman Catholic Church wants her members to discover for themselves who they were in the past through the Roman Catholic calendar. That she is hinting subtly to her members that she believes also in reincarnation?

 

[JacobEzra.]

May I ask you a question? What is the month, day & year you were born? You see in the Roman Catholic Calendar there`s for every month, day & year a Catholic was born there`s a corresponding month, day & year a Saint died. Take for example the month, day & year I was born. It`s the death anniversary of St. Martin de Porres of Lima, Peru. The year he was born was in 1579. Similarly, I was born on 1957 ( lotto 4 digit jackpot). & November 3 is the month & day St. Martin died which is the month & day I was born! That I have this notion I`m the reincarnation of St Martin de Porres. If that is the case the Roman Catholic Church wants her members to discover for themselves who they were in the past through the Roman Catholic calendar. That she is hinting subtly to her members that she believes also in reincarnation?

No. We jsut honor Saints and martyrs. See we love to remember the great Christians in the past who done wonderful things in their saintly lives. As well as the martyrs who died in the name of Christ.

 

[krsnaraja]

No. We jsut honor Saints and martyrs. See we love to remember the great Christians in the past who done wonderful things in their saintly lives. As well as the martyrs who died in the name of Christ.

This is catch 22

 

[krsnaraja]

No. We jsut honor Saints and martyrs. See we love to remember the great Christians in the past who done wonderful things in their saintly lives. As well as the martyrs who died in the name of Christ.

Catholicism was ( I repeat) made in the likeness of Hinduism.

[youtube]OJuH0B445UA[/youtube]
Nataraja Dance - YouTube

 

[Renji]

Catholicism was ( I repeat) made in the likeness of Hinduism.

[youtube]OJuH0B445UA[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJuH0B445UA&feature=related

But we don't believe in reincarnation... What made you think of that anyway?

 

[krsnaraja]

But we don't believe in reincarnation... What made you think of that anyway?

You wont believe, my friend, if I say I`m the reincarnation St. Martin de Porres?