|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 13, 2009 16:30:41 GMT -5
I'm sick to death of hearing about how the CC has been around for the first 1000 years. Actually it's more like 2,000 years. Why do historical facts make you sick? He came when it was His time to come. And, all He could do was just start The Church. He couldn't force everybody to join it. He commissioned the Apostles (who taught the first Church Fathers) to spread The Gospel. The Apostolic Fathers developed Doctrine. The Church Fathers (post 4th Century with Christianity's new best friend and former persecutor) with Rome's protection organized The Church. And so on and so on. God's Church wasn't meant to be like a light one hides under a cover, but it's meant to be exposed so that all could see it for it's beauty and know it's truth!  Today there are billions of people who have never heard of Jesus. In fact there probably have been more people throughout history who have never heard of Jesus then have heard of Jesus so what difference does it make if the Reformation didn't occur until the fifteen hundreds? Catholics are always claiming that their dogma and doctrine has developed over hundreds of years so why couldn't the protestant church begin later than the Catholic Church when the CC wasn't even fully developed? And it is quit possible that God himself got fed up with the corruption in the CC and decided to replace it with the protestant church. We have a very patient God who is willing to put up with people who are too stubborn to change but even God grows weary. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 13, 2009 20:21:07 GMT -5
 ? What? So, you think that Jesus lied? He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church! You just admitted that the Catholic Church has been around all this time and then wondered whether God was replacing the first Church with a new one that was protesting the old one! That is EXACTLY what the Mormons say. Yes, there have always been times in the Church when there were "wolves in sheep's clothing" but that doesn't mean the Church itself was "corrupted". That is impossible because Jesus said that would not happen. Can you imagine if someone looked at some random "protestant" leader that has created some scandal and said, "Well, lets just shut down the whole denomination because it's corrupt." That sounds ridiculous, but that's what you are saying happened with the "Reformation". Where did the truth go for 1500 years then? It was not in hiding some where like some people claim. Jesus said "you are the light of the world" and "a city on a hill cannot be hidden". Or, do you think that the Catholic Church started out good but then gradually went corrupt? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 12:22:57 GMT -5
I found that statement she made odd. I always wondered how is it that Protestants seem to know what's in everybody's hearts hundreds of years before they were even born. I guess, Satan's will had prevailed over The Holy Spirit at that time.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 12:36:55 GMT -5
Today there are billions of people who have never heard of Jesus. In fact there probably have been more people throughout history who have never heard of Jesus then have heard of Jesus so what difference does it make if the Reformation didn't occur until the fifteen hundreds? The difference is that The Bible, The Doctrines of Christian Faith and Christianity in general was already established when some Catholics decided to break away from The Universal Christian Church. This didn't happen in Jesus' time. The Church will never be fully developed. It's a mistake for you to believe that there is a beginning and an end to The Church. It is an evolving, living, breathing thing that is made up of humans to whom God reveals more and more of Himself as time goes on. To you, a thousand years might be a lot. To God, that's like a day. And, The Protestant Church is "not" Biblical. You'll find it no where in scripture. They cannot name one person in The Bible that started them. They were created by mankind in response to their own desires to start their own religion (which in my opinion is perfectly fine with me...Catholicism is not for those who cannot follow the rules). That's an intelligent question. Anything is possible except in this case, Jesus already stated that The Church would be protected from false teaching by the guidance of The Holy Spirit (which He sent to it in Acts). People will always be corruptable. Remember, even Jesus had corruption among The Disciples, so that would mean that God would have had to have been fed up since the beginning. Man's nature doesn't dictate Church Teaching. The Holy Spirit does. This is how we were chosen by God to produce The Holy Bible. But we also have a perfect God who created and Who guides His Church. People fail, but not The Church guided by Him...which The Catholic Church is. The thing is, people refuse to bend their reasoning to what God's Church teaches and want to bend what God's Church teaches to their inability to believe in what it teaches. I guess this is the "stubborn" folk you are referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:14:55 GMT -5
You have no idea what you are talking about! Sorry, but I don't know how else to answer that one. If Luther was so awesome, why was his final book that he wrote called...... "On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word treatise written by German Reformation leader Martin Luther in 1543.
In the treatise, Luther writes that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".[3] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[7] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies I showed you quotes in another post that proved the ECFs were anti-semitic so I am sure some of Luther's anti-semitism was learned from his Catholic background. But alas you choose to ignor that because of your bias. Actually, it is in direct contrast to what you pointed out as if to say, if it's not ok for The Church Fathers to be anti-semetic and that somehow makes them wrong, what does that say about Martin Luther then using "your" standards of judgement? Does The Holy Bible say that? How do you know? Why do you believe that this wasn't taught "before" The Reformation attempt? Oh, so before the Reformation, he "couldn't" read that in scripture? Why? What changed?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:21:55 GMT -5
What do you think the gift of "tounges" is? It's the ability for The Apostles to communicate to others in their own language. The Catholic Church claims that tounges ceased after pentecost so how would the ECFs be using tounges to communicate with each other? Besides tounges is used mostly to praise and worship God in church and not to make doctrine for the church. Again, you have no proof that the ECFs were students of the Apostles. Did you know that the world's largest group of Charismatic Christans are Catholics? Where did you get that The Church teaches that this ceased? Can you cite a source? And, in The Bible, the gift of tongues is the ability to communicate to others in their language easier. Polycarp and Ireneaus were. Ireneaus even mentions a several of the first Popes of The Catholic Church in his writings. There are tons of ancient historical documents that came before The Bible was created that mention them by name as well as The Catholic Church. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:23:19 GMT -5
Tell you what...let's just take Ireneaus' statements on The Papacy of The Roman Catholic Church: Let us focus on "this" teaching by Irenaeus and notice something here about how he talks about The Pope of The Roman Catholic Church and defends it...IreneausThe blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Here, he clearly states that The Church is built up "in" Rome and singles out The Church "of Rome" as The Church founded by The Apostles Peter and Paul...they (Peter and Paul) handed over the position as Bishop (which is what episcopate means) to Linus.Now, who was Linus?Saint Linus (d. ca.76) was the second Bishop of Rome, according to Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis; he was succeeded by Anacletus.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_LinusSo who was Linus in Christian history?
He is the 2nd Pope of The Roman Catholic Church!
Not only that, Saint Paul mentions him in Timothy! 2 Timothy 4:21 Do your utmost to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, as well as Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren.Is this a "Catholic" teaching that Linus was a direct student of The Apostle Paul?
NO! Irenaeus himself said this! IreneausPaul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate.
To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" Who are these men? Anacletus, Clement? Evaristus? Eleutherius?
They were Popes #'s 3, 4, 5 & 13!
So, what is Ireneaus stating here? He is literally listing The Popes of The Catholic Church!First CenturySt. Peter (c.33-67AD)
Linus (? 67-76)
Anacletus (? 76-88)
Clement I (? 88-97)
Evaristus (? 97-105)Second CenturyAlexander I (? 105-15)
Sixtus I (? 115-25)
Telesphorus (? 125-36)
Hyginus (? 136-40)
Pius I (? 140-55)
Anicetus (? 155-66)
Soter (? 166-75)
Eleutherius (? 175-89)www.britannia.com/history/resource/popes.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:24:52 GMT -5
And here is Polycarp who studied under either Saint John The Apostle or Saint John The Baptist: Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) was a second century bishop of Smyrna[1]. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he died a martyr when he was stabbed after an attempt to burn him at the stake failed[2]. Polycarp is regarded as a saint in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches. He is identified as a disciple of the apostles,[3] or in particular of John the Apostle[4] or John the Evangelist.[5] With Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. The sole surviving work attributed to his authorship is Letter to the Philippians; it is first recorded by Irenaeus of Lyons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 14, 2009 13:58:24 GMT -5
? What? So, you think that Jesus lied? He said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church! You just admitted that the Catholic Church has been around all this time and then wondered whether God was replacing the first Church with a new one that was protesting the old one! That is EXACTLY what the Mormons say. Yes, there have always been times in the Church when there were "wolves in sheep's clothing" but that doesn't mean the Church itself was "corrupted". That is impossible because Jesus said that would not happen. Can you imagine if someone looked at some random "protestant" leader that has created some scandal and said, "Well, lets just shut down the whole denomination because it's corrupt." That sounds ridiculous, but that's what you are saying happened with the "Reformation". Where did the truth go for 1500 years then? It was not in hiding some where like some people claim. Jesus said "you are the light of the world" and "a city on a hill cannot be hidden". Or, do you think that the Catholic Church started out good but then gradually went corrupt? Those are all difficult questions. To answer one to one, eliminates the others. Think about it, not one can name one church that existed before The Catholic Church (much less name one Protestant church that existed before The Catholic Church). Not one Protestant died defending Christianity against The Muslim Incursions of The Crusades. Not one Protestant contributed to the creation of The Holy Bible or to Christian Doctrine. Just like the Japanese, they just work off of what we already created. They used Catholicism as the foundation of Protestantism. Today, Protestants like to try to refer back to the original Jews as if to create some magical link in order to gain authenticity. But, they'd have to tie themselves to a Nation that rejects Jesus Christ. Makes no sense. Why reject your own Christian brothers and chase Jesus Rejectors? The Jews will take all the money that Protestants try to send there to garner favor with God (the whole, bless Israel and you will be blessed indulgence thing), but they will never be bought. They reject Jesus Christ is The Messiah and in vehement opposition to Him, The Son of God, reject The Gospel. They even reject The New Testament. It's just so...odd to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 14, 2009 16:09:46 GMT -5
Why not? In the Old Testament few people were indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Same thing with Luther. Few people were indwelt with the Holy Spirit until Luthers time. God talks about having a remnant of true believers throughout both the Old and New Testament. Few people now or in the past have been true believers. The people who aren't true believers only have a form of godliness but deny the power. They are too busy with "bells and smells" to see the real meaning of the gospel. LOL! But Jesus Christ promise his Church will never fail (Matthew 16:18). According to you, the Holy Spirit was only present during the Apostolic Era, and then after that, only on "some" people (but you and others can't tell us who were these people teaching the True Faith vs what the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church taught since 33AD). No sweetheart, since 33AD, Christ Church (The Way, the Catholic Church, or the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) has been defending against hereies and proclaim the Truth. His Church is found in the East, not in a plain old Methodist Church. And actually, in the NT, all who came to the Church, came in union with Christ and the Holy Apostles believed and proclaim, was indwelt with the Holy Spirit, not "few"! And yes, there has always been a remnant of true Believers. These people were part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church since 33AD. If not, who was these "Secret" remnant you are talking about? What were there called? What did they believed and proclaim? Were they the Gnostics? the Arians? Who? Difficult question, isn't it? If Martin Luther was indwelt with the Holy Spirit, why then do you not follow in everything he taught? Do you know that he defended these doctrines: Baptismal Regeneration, intercession of the Saints in heaven, the intercession and veneration of the Holy Virgin Mary, Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary (he didn't consider it a dogma though), Infant Baptism, The Eucharist being truly (not symbolically) Christ' Body and Blood, among other things. A reading of his writings will prove all this. It seems that Martin Luther wasn't indwelt with a special gift from the Holy Spirit to proclaim the truth after all...... In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 14, 2009 16:20:26 GMT -5
And it is quit possible that God himself got fed up with the corruption in the CC and decided to replace it with the protestant church. We have a very patient God who is willing to put up with people who are too stubborn to change but even God grows weary. Actually, if you believe the Church started by Christ and preserve by the Holy Apostles, got totally corrupted and couldn''t defend the Truth, then you do not believe Scriptures after all, since Scriptures makes it plain that the Church will never fail and that she proclaim the truth (Matthew 16:18: 1 Tim 3:15, John 10:16; among others)........ Protestants subtracted from the Faith in there rally against the Roman Catholic Church. Oh dear, according to you, the true Apostolic Church was absent for 1,500 years. Oh dear, all those saints and martyrs of the 1st-16th century, all die in a corrupt faith! Gosh! And by the way, which group of Protestants did God use to proclaim the truth in the 16th-21st century, as each Protestant believed and practice differently, all claiming to be led by God? Also, there is no such thing as a "Protestant Church", but "Protestant Church es". Each Protestant Church teach and practice differently. No unity there! LOL! Again, which Protestant Church did God replace the Roman Catholic Church with? The Lutherans? The Calvinists? the Anglicans? And don't tell me....the Methodists? LOL! In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 14, 2009 16:35:09 GMT -5
When Catholicism became the dominate religion people really didn't know about the in-dwelling of the Spirit. After the Reformation the common man was taught that he could be indwelt with the Spirit. You either lieing or got misinformed! The Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers of the Church from the 1st-16th Century talked about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, specifically in the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Christmation (confirmation). It is quit clear you have no idea of what you talking about. You haven't read the writings of the Early Church Fathers. What a shame. Educate yourself first before embarrassing yourself like this. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church since 33AD have always taught her members about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They were taught about that either before Holy Baptism and Christmation or after they receive these Sacraments. Popular writings of the Holy Fathers in this regard are Saint Cyril of Jerusalem "Lectures on the Christian Sacraments", Saint Ambrose of Millan "On the Sacraments" (etc), : Macarius of Jerusalem: Letter to the Armenians, among others. You really do need to buy volumes of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and read them. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 14, 2009 16:39:13 GMT -5
Again, you have no proof that the ECFs were students of the Apostles. No one said that all the ECF's were students of the Holy Apostles specifically, only that some of them were (like Saint Clement of Rome, Saint Papias, and others). Are you denying Historical facts to make a point? In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 14, 2009 16:48:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 19, 2009 16:32:41 GMT -5
I went to a Greek festival today and then took a tour of a Greek Orthodox church. The Church was breathtakingly beautiful. Originally the church had been a Methodist church and was built in 1813 in the Byzantine style. I never heard of a Methodist church built in the Byzantine style.
Anyway Heather would have loved the icons in this church. Some were in the Greek style and others in the Russian style. Monks and nuns painted them. The priest explained why the icons are painted the way they are which I really wasn't interested in. He explained why the fingers are long and skinny...stuff like that (who cares). He also said what some of the people on this forum have said that they are meant to be cartoon like...not real representations because there is always a danger of people worshiping them.
My question is why would the church want to flirt with getting that close to idolatry? Why not just play it safe and do away with any religious art in the church?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Jun 19, 2009 16:37:08 GMT -5
Why do you hang pictures on your wall at home? Do you worship them? Or are they there for remembrance? There is nothing wrong with pictures of people on then wall!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 19, 2009 18:29:55 GMT -5
Why do you hang pictures on your wall at home? Do you worship them? Or are they there for remembrance? There is nothing wrong with pictures of people on then wall!!!!! I would never hang a picture up of my great, great, great grandma....I have no idea what she looked like. Just like people have no idea what Jesus looks like. I also don't pray to my pictures of family members. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 19, 2009 20:48:23 GMT -5
My question is why would the church want to flirt with getting that close to idolatry? Why not just play it safe and do away with any religious art in the church? Who's getting close with idolatry? Holy Icons has its origins in the Old Testament. The Jews was commanded by God to make Holy Icons and Statues in the Ark and the Holy Temple. The problem here is not Holy Icons, but the heart of the person. Remember, the Holy Apostles and the Early Christians were Jewish Christians. Christianity is a extension of Judaism, which why in Orthodoxy, the traits of very similar compare Evangelical Protestants and Jews. They were fulfilled Jews. They viewed the Old Testament as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ, but in all truth, they did not let go of there Jewish roots, which is why in Acts, we are told that Saint Peter and John kept the praying hours of the Jews (in was part of there Jewish Christian lie) (Acts 3:1), Saint Paul kept the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), and so fourth (the only difference is that they developed Christian overtones). My point is that Holy Icons got carry over to Christianity, because it was a part of Judaism. It took a long time, but the Church realize that Holy Icons are part of Holy Scriptures and the Living Tradition of the Church. Holy Icons are there to show us our Faith, to take us to a higher plane of spirituality. Every Sunday, we do not only hear Scriptures, but also see them through the Holy Icons of events of Scriptures and Saints. Idolatry is not problem for us Eastern Orthodox Christians. Why? Because we are told that it is a sin. The Holy Eastern Orthodox Church has told her members since the 7th Holy Ecumenical Council of the 8th century that Holy Icons are not object of worship, but veneration. Having Holy Icons or Statues does not equal Idolatry. Now, if someone view these Icons as objects of worship, then they have fallen from the faith of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church. Also, I once saw a Methodist Church online, in which just behind the pulpit they were a Icon of a event in Holy Scriptures. Go figure! The Methodist Churches I have seen have a image of a cross in the pulpit or a very big cross behind it (material one, not picture). How is that any different? You do not think a Methodist Christian can worship that cross if he wanted to? Sounds absurd, but it can happen. Listen alfie, I have seen many Protestants kissing there Bibles, heck we Orthodox do that. But do we worship the Bible? No. We do not worship the paper or link. We kiss Holy Bible (venerated) because the words contain therein are able to give spiritual life to those who read or hear them. They are a witness to the Church Truth. Also, people can worship the Icon of the Methodist Church. People can find all sorts of things to worship. Don't you know that people worship there cars? television? sports players? For some, they have literally turn them into Idols. You do not need a Icon or Statue to make it a Idol. Why not just live in a cardboard box then? or a empty house (to avoid Idolizing anything)? In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jun 19, 2009 20:52:21 GMT -5
I have no idea what she looked like. Just like people have no idea what Jesus looks like. Holy Icons are there to be a Kodak pictures. Holy Icons are not meant to be a reality picture, showing the exactness of the person or event portray in the Icon. I also don't pray to my pictures of family members. No true Christian does. Latin/Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians do not pray to the pictures. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Jun 19, 2009 21:10:36 GMT -5
Ramon, you still didn't tell me why your church eliminated the second commandment.
|
|
? What? 
