Which Church was "The First Church"? (gnostic, belief, dogma)

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by Steph1980

I hear what you're saying. It's not right for people to ignore that the RCC has been a powerful and influential establishment for literally centuries. That's historical fact, so I don't get people's stubbornness on this point. What I'm asking is - really, does it matter who was the first Christian Church or brought Christianity to the planet? It doesn't make a difference, unless of course the RCC is claiming to have preserved the absolute truth and has held to it consistently over all these long years. <- That is what I take issue with, because I don't believe it's true.

I guess in a nutshell what I'm driving at is that it's not how you start that counts. If a church started out well but is now in utter error and dire apostasy (I'm speaking rhetorically), what good does it do to boast about their great origins? Would you agree?

I am certain some men that ran the Catholic church made mistakes. But, as I said to you before. Would you stop being a Christian if your preacher became a big time sinner?

The Catholic church has changed a lot over the centuries-----even if the change is slow.

The church believe that those that seek Christ are saved regardless of denomination. It goes as far as to say there is salvation to those that lived a good life but were isolated from Jesus. In other words the church has become very accpeting of others and truly universal.

But, do not forget that for us tradition is HUGE. I get goose bumps when I hear the Ave Maria.

[Steph1980]

Originally Posted by Julian658

I am certain some men that ran the Catholic church made mistakes. But, as I said to you before. Would you stop being a Christian if your preacher became a big time sinner?

The Catholic church has changed a lot over the centuries-----even if the change is slow.

The church believe that those that seek Christ are saved regardless of denomination. It goes as far as to say there is salvation to those that lived a good life but were isolated from Jesus. In other words the church has become very accpeting of others and truly universal.

But, do not forget that for us tradition is HUGE. I get goose bumps when I hear the Ave Maria.

Hi Julian, I just read through your prior post now (was typing mine when you posted yours) and I appreciate the time you took to write it. I will respond to it soon, just got to get some things done. Thanks again..
Steph

[cmforte]

Originally Posted by Steph1980

I hear what you're saying. It's not right for people to ignore that the RCC has been a powerful and influential establishment for literally centuries. That's historical fact, so I don't get people's stubbornness on this point. What I'm asking is - really, does it matter who was the first Christian Church or brought Christianity to the planet? It doesn't make a difference, unless of course the RCC is claiming to have preserved the absolute truth and has held to it consistently over all these long years. <- That is what I take issue with, because I don't believe it's true.

I guess in a nutshell what I'm driving at is that it's not how you start that counts. If a church started out well but is now in utter error and dire apostasy (I'm speaking rhetorically, about any church), what good does it do to boast about their great origins? Would you agree?

But you see we Catholics, while recognizing the sinful actions of some of our past and present leaders, don't believe the RCC has ever officially taught error or officially fell into "dire apostasy."

[Steph1980]

Originally Posted by cmforte

But you see we Catholics, while recognizing the sinful actions of some of our past and present leaders, don't believe the RCC has ever officially taught error or officially fell into "dire apostasy."

yes... I understand that you believe that. I just wanted to make sure you know I'm not picking on the RCC to the exclusion of other churches about teaching or holding to doctrines/traditions that (IMHO) are not accurate.

Quick question... what made you and Julian think I was harping on sinful behaviour of past popes? I was speaking about infallibility regarding ex cathedra pronouncements, not sinless living. I have, in another thread, brought up the issue of past popes and their conduct, but not here.

Steph

[cmforte]

Originally Posted by Steph1980

yes... I understand that you believe that. I just wanted to make sure you know I'm not picking on the RCC to the exclusion of other churches about teaching or holding to doctrines/traditions that (IMHO) are not accurate.

Quick question... what made you and Julian think I was harping on sinful behaviour of past popes? I was speaking about infallibility regarding ex cathedra pronouncements, not sinless living. I have, in another thread, brought up the issue of past popes and their conduct, but not here.

Steph

Experience, Steph. Experience. Since we don't believe any of our leaders ever taught error, our debate opponent will counter that they did act in error, or sinfully. Most people like you will and have always gone back to the "bad popes" argument to try to convince us Catholics that the RCC is wrong, fell into "apostasy," and is even "evil." It is their straw-man and default argument-it is their trump card and "smoking gun," so they think, one they love to draw back on.

[Steph1980]

Originally Posted by cmforte

Experience, Steph. Experience. Since we don't believe any of our leaders ever taught error, our debate opponent will counter that they did act in error, or sinfully. Most people like you will and have always gone back to the "bad popes" argument to try to convince us Catholics that the RCC is wrong, fell into "apostasy," and is even "evil." It is their straw-man and default argument-it is their trump card and "smoking gun," so they think, one they love to draw back on.

And your strawman regarding my current line of reasoning is that I am attacking your popes' personal conduct. I am not, so can we stick with what I was saying?

[Steph1980]

Originally Posted by Steph1980

And your strawman regarding my current line of reasoning is that I am attacking your popes' personal conduct. I am not, so can we stick with what I was saying?

actually I think the term I was looking for is "red herring" not strawman.

[cmforte]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steph1980
And your strawman regarding my current line of reasoning is that I am attacking your popes' personal conduct. I am not, so can we stick with what I was saying?

I never said you did. Just that others who make your same arguments and take your side in this debate have and always do go back to it. So I was just addressing it before it was brought up, knowing that it eventually and inevitably will be. Even if not by you.

[Steph1980]

Originally Posted by Julian658

Apostolic Tradition

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

I don't know about you, but I cannot imagine a world with no traditions. How can you live without tradition?

Lets say you learn French history and learn how to speak French.
Lest say I also learn French history and learn how to speak French, however I actually move to France to soak the French culture and traditions that are not in the books.

I am in 100% agreement with you. The apostolic tradition passed on to the ECFs by the apostles is a very important and often overlooked element in Christianity. Many churches have absolutely no regard for how the church functioned in those early years, and the apostolic traditions that were preserved by the ECFs shed much light on the NT and how to interpret it, and also offer us a great many other valuable insights.

Are you implying a corrupt priest or church leader? What a surprise, men are corrupt! Will you stop being a Christian if your preacher was a sinner? Would that make you leave Christianity?

No, I'm not implying a corrupt leader. Why did you think that? I was even very careful with my wording to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting the Catholic position about how you treat Mary, for instance. My point with those questions was that apostolic tradition which the RCC supposedly prizes highly, must be traced back to... you guessed it... the apostles. This is why I asked if any of those traditions can be found in ECF writings.

We honor Mary. We do not think Mary is a God. I guess you have to be Catholic to get this.

The verse shows you the origin of the Hail Mary which was passed down by oral tradition. These are the things that you are missing by studying the Bible in a vacuum.

First of all, how can you say I am studying the Bible in a vacuum when I am actually eager to hear from the early church fathers about apostolic tradition? Did the early church fathers talk about the Hail Mary? I never said you think Mary is a God. I said Catholics honour Mary.

Now, on to Mary herself... you quote a passage from Luke where Elizabeth greets and blesses Mary, and this is now the entire reason that Mary is honoured second only to Jesus by the RCC? What about another passage in Luke where a random woman in a crowd calls out to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” And Jesus responds, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” And what about other Scriptures that talk about other people who are blessed: the meek, merciful, peace keepers, persecuted, etc... those people are not honoured to her degree. Elsewhere, Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are waiting for Him outside, and He says that His mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it... so what gives? Did the ECFs or apostles ever mention the importance of honouring Mary? Mary isn't even mentioned in any of the epistles!

Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, we will have to conclude that honouring Mary is an example of a very important so-called apostolic tradition which cannot be traced back to the apostles via the early church fathers. Only one example.

There were no computers with word processors in the time of the apostles. Not all they said went into the bible. However, it was passed as tradition and you are obviously out of the loop.

Yes, apparently me and everyone else. Including the ECFs? Why didn't they record these precious traditions passed on from the apostles?

Non-Catholics often confuse the pope’s gift of ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability’. They think the Catholic Church is claiming her Popes are sinless or that the Pope is claiming inspiration from God for every pronouncement he makes. This is not the case. In fact, infallibility is attached to his office, not his person. It is a protective gift, not a creative one introducing new revelation.

The personal conduct of the pope is not under discussion, only papal infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra.

(John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops. The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16)

Julian.... really? John 16:14 and Luke 10:16 --- Have you read them? Have you read the context?

John 16:14 - Jesus is talking to the apostles, all of them. He doesn't mention that their successors will inherit this 'gift' of infallibility. Perhaps that was a little bit of oral tradition that didn't get included in the Bible, but did get handed down from the apostles to the ECFs. It certainly would have benefited the ECFs to have asserted this gift of infallibility and mentioned it in their writings. Did they?

Luke 10:16 - Jesus is addressing the 72 as he sends them out. Totally irrelevant to the question of papal infallibility!

[b]

(1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most "examples" of papal "errors" emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points.

Where did those 3 "rules" about speaking infallibly come from? The ECFs? Or was this another oral tradition that is hidden and completely unverifiable by anyone outside of the Catholic church?

I am not persuaded that the RCC is following apostolic tradition. I value apostolic tradition!

Blessings
Stephanie

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by Steph1980

No, I'm not implying a corrupt leader. Why did you think that? I was even very careful with my wording to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting the Catholic position about how you treat Mary, for instance. My point with those questions was that apostolic tradition which the RCC supposedly prizes highly, must be traced back to... you guessed it... the apostles. This is why I asked if any of those traditions can be found in ECF writings.

It is sacred oral tradition and is preserved by the apostolic succession. All ordained priest can be traced back to the Apostles.

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach. The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases. From Catholic answers

First of all, how can you say I am studying the Bible in a vacuum when I am actually eager to hear from the early church fathers about apostolic tradition? Did the early church fathers talk about the Hail Mary? I never said you think Mary is a God. I said Catholics honour Mary.


Now, on to Mary herself... you quote a passage from Luke where Elizabeth greets and blesses Mary, and this is now the entire reason that Mary is honoured second only to Jesus by the RCC? What about another passage in Luke where a random woman in a crowd calls out to Jesus: "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” And Jesus responds, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, we will have to conclude that honouring Mary is an example of a very important so-called apostolic tradition which cannot be traced back to the apostles via the early church fathers. Only one example.

The Angelic Salutation, Hail Mary, or Ave Maria (Latin) is a traditional biblical Catholic prayer asking for the intercession of the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Hail Mary is used within the Catholic Church, and it forms the basis of the Rosary.

The hail Mary Text is on the Bible and I guess you already figure that out:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;
blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now
and at the hour of our death.
Amen.



The Hail Mary became popular during medieval times. The rosary is a devotion in honor of the Virgin Mary. It consists of a set number of specific prayers. First are the introductory prayers: one Apostles’ Creed (Credo), one Our Father (the Pater Noster or the Lord’s Prayer), three Hail Mary’s (Ave’s), one Glory Be (Gloria Patri).

After Vatican II the rosary fell into relative disuse. The same is true for Marian devotions as a whole. But in recent years the rosary has made a comeback, and not just among Catholics. Many Protestants now say the rosary, recognizing it as a truly biblical form of prayer—after all, the prayers that comprise it come mainly from the Bible.

Why didn't they record these precious traditions passed on from the apostles?

It is not recorded because it is tradition.

But, don't worry, the mass is all about Jesus Christ. Mary is sometimes mentioned during specific days according to our calendar. Fundamentalists are obsessed with the concept that Catholics worship Mary instead of God. But a prayer to Mary is a prayer to God. All Catholics know that and we also know that God knows our heart. If they think God gets upset over a Hail Mary then they have a poor concept of God. But, I can assure you that the Catholic mass is all about Jesus Christ, the gospels, Psalms, two other bible readings and communion.

Julian.... really? John 16:14 and Luke 10:16 --- Have you read them? Have you read the context?

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor