Protestant and Catholic theological differences.

[metis]

The Catholic Church accepts the validity of these churches as means of salvation through Christ. The question of validity is concerned with the non acceptance of the episcopate in historical succession of the apostles and the bishops as it developed in the NT period. Instead of 'isolated' Christians there is pluralism, as there was in NT times.

Exactly, and the CC accepts the fact that there are numerous denominations who share this with us, such as the Orthodox Church that also includes the Coptic Church, Anglican/Episcopalian Church, Moravian Church, and some Scandinavian Lutheran synods. Even those not listed are not to be judged as being against Christ in any way, nor are their congregants to be judged-- that's God's domain.

 

[Dogknox20]

Ignatatius is not Bible. I won't treat that one. Bible only please. At least when you want to show that the Catholic Church is the only valid one!
As I said in #136: even if we suppose that the first church was Catholic... why suppose that Jesus stayed with it - even after murder.
In Catholic tradition, does the church eat flesh? Only the believers eat it, I think.

Ignatius wrote before the Bible was even made! You reject Ignatius?! The Church that put the bible together more then likely considered Ignatius to determine the inspired letters to put in her bible!
THINK: The bible was put together by the use of "TRADITION"!
thomas t you only accept the bible?! I point out Bible ONLY Is a Man made TRADITION started in the 16th century by the Man Martin Luther!

THINK: So a 500 year old MAN MADE TRADITION is the only thing you will accept?
Fact is: "The scriptures" tell you.. Listen to the CHURCH! There is no scriptures that say.. ONLY trust the scriptures!
thomas t Scriptures tell you .. "Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his church TO THE END OF TIME!" You asked... If we suppose that the first church was Catholic why suppose that Jesus stayed with it? Simple answer is.. Because Jesus cannot lie! The simple answer is because scriptures tell you... "Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his Church to the end of time!" Jesus started with his holy Church the same church that he died for, so he will never leave her for a man made church!
The simple answer is found in the scriptures... Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide his Holy Catholic Body into ALL TRUTH to remain FOREVER with her!
thomas t To remain FOREVER means: the Holy Spirit will never abandon her for your man made church! BUT.. It's your skin.. Not mine!
thomas t If the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Catholic Church into all truth then you can go ahead and blame GOD! DO IT... Blame God for not saying what you want to hear!
thomas t If you believe Jesus lied and he did not remain ALWAYS WITH his Church until the end of time then...Go right ahead and blame God! Call God a liar!
thomas t You want to believe the Holy Spirit lied, he did not remain FOREVER with the one Church Jesus established.. Go right ahead and blame God! Call God a liar! Go ahead reject the scriptures!
thomas t "You want to think Jesus did not build his church on ROCK, that he built his church on sand... Then by all means tell God he failed that he lied! Reject the words of Jesus.. It's your choice and your salvation at stake!

 

[thomas t]

Ignatius can't count as Bible author or as anything similar to this.

Listen to the CHURCH!

as I said... which one.
I explained you already in #141: even if the Bible says "church", that doesn't necessarily mean the Catholic one. I hate repeating myself over and over again.

thomas t Scriptures tell you .. "Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his church TO THE END OF TIME!" You asked... If we suppose that the first church was Catholic why suppose that Jesus stayed with it? Simple answer is.. Because Jesus cannot lie! The simple answer is because scriptures tell you... "Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his Church to the end of time!" [...]

see above.
----
It's your presumption that all other churches are man made... Jesus never said that he does not build up new believers... and churches.

thomas t If the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Catholic Church into all truth then you can go ahead and blame GOD!

ah no. God guided Balaam, also, through his spirit. I'm assuming that every prophet who speaks the word of God has it. But it was his fault that the whole thing went wrong - not God's.


I don't say Jesus, or the Holy Spirit lied. I'm not saying Jesus builds churches on sand.

 

[pearl]

So we see Catholics leaders doing this. The Archdéacon did not involve in this activities during his free time, I think, since it says "preaching". So he did this during his working time, I conclude.
However, the Catholic church did nothing to stop it, as I see it... so... the Catholic Church is to get the blame for it.

ah. Are you saying that the RCC did NOT murder people during inquisition?

It is not only the Catholic Church. Many of those seeking religious freedom settled in Massachusetts, and hung those they considered witches. As far as the Church is concerned the crimes committed of which you note are acknowledged, confessed, repented, and forgiveness sought, in preparation for the Jubilee year 2000. Among those sins is mentioned including the methods of violence and intolerance used in the past to evangelize. There is a pretty good explanation offered at this site, the official document is very long as it presents the theology of "The Faults of the Past".
Great Jubilee - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

I Corinthians 12[12]For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. [that whole chapter goes a bit further than the above]

Jesus create the head of this "one body" with his appointment of the apostles, and the apostles appointed successors to keep the Church as being "one body", and this is rather clearly a historical fact, whereas even one can use Wiki as an independent source to use: History of Christianity - Wikipedia

Obviously, within that "one body" there are local churches, much like we see today within Catholicism and other denominations, but the Church clearly was envisioned by Jesus at the outset be one or he wouldn't have made his appointments as he did. He could have said "Go out and just do your own thing while believing somethings about God and me", but he didn't. Instead, it says in the Gospel that "he taught with authority", and the apostles did the same. Without a Church and its leadership, there is no authority-- it would be just a theological free-for-all.

And this is also why the Church selecting the canon was also so important, especially since there were other books from other groups with other teachings. With no authority, anything goes.

 

[Dogknox20]

Ignatius can't count as Bible author or as anything similar to this.

as I said... which one.
I explained you already in #141: even if the Bible says "church", that doesn't necessarily mean the Catholic one. I hate repeating myself over and over again.

see above.
----
It's your presumption that all other churches are man made... Jesus never said that he does not build up new believers... and churches.

ah no. God guided Balaam, also, through his spirit. I'm assuming that every prophet who speaks the word of God has it. But it was his fault that the whole thing went wrong - not God's.


I don't say Jesus, or the Holy Spirit lied. I'm not saying Jesus builds churches on sand.

thomas t I hope all is well..... The simple answer to all your questions is.... Find the ONLY Church NOT started by a man! That ONE Church would be "The Church"! Clearly Jesus Started, Formed, Established, Built>>>> ONE CHURCH it will never to fail because Jesus built his ONE Church ON ROCK not on sand! One Church NOT thousands of Man Made churches!
Scriptures are clear... "Listen to; The Church" (singular)! "I will build my Church" (singular)

Acts 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
thomas t Do you own homework then get back to me!

 

[thomas t]

thomas t you only accept the bible?! I point out Bible ONLY Is a Man made TRADITION started in the 16th century by the Man Martin Luther!

it's a good tool to avoid taking unnecessary risks.
Bible is inerrant. This is my belief at least.
All other sources are potentially flawed.
----
Again, even if the Catholic church started off as a good one... or even as the "one" church, as you say... there is no scripture garantee it will stay like this, as I see it. As I said so often, Jesus can chop off churches as he did in Revelation 3:16.

Please don't tell me which homework I should or should not do.

EDITED

 

[metis]

If one believes the Bible is inerrant, then maybe check out the four gospel's account of the women going to the tomb, what they saw, what they heard, and what they did afterward. No two gospels agree.

OTOH, the general picture of the women going to the tomb and realizing that Jesus was not there as he was risen is consistent with all four.

 

[thomas t]

No two gospels agree

that doesn't mean they contradict each other.
I permit myself to stay with my opinion about the inerrancy of the Bible.
This Ignatius, that one may be errant. But not the Bible, I think.

 

[metis]

that doesn't mean they contradict each other.

Maybe check it out for yourself.

Back when I was a teenager in the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in, my parent bought me the book "Harmony of the Gospels", which laid verses on the same topic side by side from the gospels. But the thing that mostly stuck out to me is how much they actually disagreed with each other, and in most cases no amount of what I call "theological gymnastics" could change it.

 

[thomas t]

Maybe check it out for yourself.

ok.
Until I do so I stay with my opinion... unless you present a true contradiction regarding the tomb stories.

 

[metis]

unless you present a true contradiction regarding the tomb stories.

Nope-- ya gotta do this yourself.

 

[thomas t]

Nope-- ya gotta do this yourself.

I'm happy with my belief.

 

[metis]

I'm happy with my belief.

As a scientist, now retired, I tend to do it the other way.

 

[pearl]

it's a good tool to avoid taking unnecessary risks.
Bible is inerrant. This is my belief at least.
All other sources are potentially flawed.

For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of "that truth" with "for the sake of our salvation."
Geographical locations, the order of things etc. have nothing to do with inspiration.

If one believes the Bible is inerrant, then maybe check out the four gospel's account of the women going to the tomb, what they saw, what they heard, and what they did afterward. No two gospels agree.
OTOH, the general picture of the women going to the tomb and realizing that Jesus was not there as he was risen is consistent with all four.

Exactly.
IX. This primitive instruction, which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing--for it soon happened that many tried "to compile a narrative of the things"[21] which concerned the Lord Jesus--was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability[22] of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose. Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order,[23] and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense.[24] For, as St. Augustine says, "It is quite probable that each Evangelist believed it to have been his duty to recount what he had to in that order in which it pleased God to suggest it to his memory in those things at least in which the order, whether it be this or that, detracts in nothing from the truth and authority of the Gospel. But why the Holy Spirit, who apportions individually to each one as He wills,[25] and who therefore undoubtedly also governed and ruled the minds of the holy (writers) in recalling what they were to write because of the pre-eminent authority which the books were to enjoy, permitted one to compile his narrative in this way, and another in that, anyone with pious diligence may seek the reason and with divine aid will be able to find it."[26]

excerpt 'The Historical Truth of the Gospels'

 

[Dogknox20]

it's a good tool to avoid taking unnecessary risks.
Bible is inerrant. This is my belief at least.
All other sources are potentially flawed.
----
Again, even if the Catholic church started off as a good one... or even as the "one" church, as you say... there is no scripture garantee it will stay like this, as I see it. As I said so often, Jesus can chop off churches as he did in Revelation 3:16.

Please don't tell me which homework I should or should not do.

EDITED

thomas t Yes you are right "Jesus can chop off churches.. (Plural)!" Jesus cannot lie, the ONE Church he started he must still be with; After all the Church (Singular) is his bride! Did Jesus make your church? Answer MUST be NO! So why are you still in your church when you KNOW beyond all doubt it is NOT The Church, your church was started by a man!

thomas t Yes the bible is "Inerrant" you know this so why do you reject the bible as lies from the mouth of God? "The Holy Spirit is FOREVER sent to the Church Jesus built on ROCK"! Do you believe this? It is scripture!

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

thomas t The Bible tells you: Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his church; the same Church he commissioned to TEACH ALL NATIONS! ALWAYS WITH to the end of TIME.. Can only mean God knows the future he will NEVER leave his Holy Catholic Church!
19 So go and make followers of all people in the world. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 20 Teach them to obey everything that I have told you to do. You can be sure that I will be with you always. I will continue with you until the end of time.”

There is NO other church except the Catholic Church she has roots back to the First Shepherd Peter!

 

[Dogknox20]

And yet you do not accept the results of all this expert historical study that states the evidence for Peter being the first pope is not found, and not a 'fact of history'.

Hello pcarl.... "apostolic succession" is a fact of history!
2 Timothy 2:2 What you have heard me teach publicly you should teach to others. Share these teachings with people you can trust. Then they will be able to teach others these same things.
pcarl In this verse (above) Paul refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

You read in the inerrant scriptures.. "The Holy Spirit is FOREVER guiding the Church into ALL TRUTH"!
Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

"The Holy Spirit is FOREVER guiding the Church into ALL TRUTH"! To say different is to reject the words of God!

Hegesippus
“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Matthias was Judas’s successor Acts 1! The office of Bishop/Apostle is passed on! “His office let another take" the passage shows that the office of overseer had to be filled. In 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus about ordaining men to the office of bishop the office of bishop was intended to continue after the apostles’ deaths.

At Antioch, Ignatius was ordained by Paul, and then, at the end of the reign of Evodius, he was appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter. He reigned there for many years before his martyrdom in Rome. On his way to Rome to be martyred, he wrote several letters to fellow Christians in various locations on Christian theology. He especially emphasized unity among Christians (see John 17) and became known as an Apostolic Father of the Church. In one of his letters (to Christians in Smyrna), he wrote, “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” The Christians of Antioch were part of the Catholic Church. They were indeed Christian disciples, but they were also Catholic.
Ignatius of Antioch
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

The early Church had Bishops with Authority of the Apostles! The Early Catholic Church ate "EUCHARIST" (the body of Christ)!

The early Church was the Catholic Church!
Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:
But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church witch also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro

Ignatius teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Ignatius was a Catholic the ONLY Church Jesus established could only be The Catholic Church!

 

[thomas t]

For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of "that truth" with "for the sake of our salvation."
Geographical locations, the order of things etc. have nothing to do with inspiration.

well yeah, that's Catholic teaching.
I stay with my opinion: Bible is inerrant. (period).
An almighty God can provide an inerrant Bible even if its authors

* operated "with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself.",

* "selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis",

* "kept in mind the situation of the churches.",

* and so on...

Thomas

 

[thomas t]

Did Jesus make your church? Answer MUST be NO!

this MUST be presumtion.
And no, I don't "KNOW beyond all doubt it is NOT The Church,"

the ONLY Church Jesus established could only be The Catholic Church!

As I said, as Galatians 3:27-28 pointed out, it's by baptism in Christ that you become part of the entirety which is his church/ the body/ the bride, as I see it. That's the body Jesus is always with.
Even if for a time 100% of all baptised Christians were Catholics... it doesn't have to have remained so.
This entirety may change over time. Today we see people baptized in Christ that don't belong to the Catholic church, at all.
Of course God can have left the Catholic church, I think. There is no guarantee made to organisations.

I do not reject the bible as lies from the mouth of God.

 

[pearl]

Hello pcarl.... "apostolic succession" is a fact of history!

Yes it is. The difference we have is the definition of apostolic history, which is not defined by a list of names. It is the body of teaching of the Apostles handed down to a body of bishops, not a singular apostle to a singular bishop. It would be just a valid to say that both Peter and Paul were pillars of the Church.