Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, but you do. You quite often make posts about how the RCC (an oxymoron to call something "Roman CATHOLIC (UNIVERSAL)) is superior to protestants.
It may seem I say superior, but it is not. It is just different and I don't think Catholicism is better than other forms of Christianity. As I said before. You are and will always be a catholic. You are part of the church of Christ and makes you catholic.
It may seem I say superior, but it is not. It is just different and I don't think Catholicism is better than other forms of Christianity. As I said before. You are and will always be a catholic. You are part of the church of Christ and makes you catholic.
Except that the head of my church is not headquartered in Rome, or the Vatican. Nor is my leader the Pope.
There is more than just the Bible. For example the Immaculate Conception. That came years after the NT.
And that is an example of a doctrine that goes directly against Scripture. So you may suggest that it's scripture + tradition...but in practice it's tradition > scripture.
And that is an example of a doctrine that goes directly against Scripture. So you may suggest that it's scripture + tradition...but in practice it's tradition > scripture.
The Church says it is like the Trinity and can be deducted from the NT, but it is quite a stretch. But, who cares Vizio? It is a feast of the CC and a day of obligation and therefore my wife will pull me by the ears into church.
The Church says it is like the Trinity and can be deducted from the NT, but it is quite a stretch. But, who cares Vizio? It is a feast of the CC and a day of obligation and therefore my wife will pull me by the ears into church.
You were the one that seemed to be trying to prove the idea of Tradition--and suggested that it can be as valid as scripture. I would point out that the idea of Mary being sinless goes directly against Scripture. The implication is that either scripture is correct, or it is. To believe in it, you must disbelieve the apostle Paul when he said that all have sinned.
You were the one that seemed to be trying to prove the idea of Tradition--and suggested that it can be as valid as scripture. I would point out that the idea of Mary being sinless goes directly against Scripture. The implication is that either scripture is correct, or it is. To believe in it, you must disbelieve the apostle Paul when he said that all have sinned.
I am aware of that Vizio. But, I don't think it is a big deal. I will post more tomorrow. I will study theology all night and come back with the answer.
It is just different and I don't think Catholicism is better than other forms of Christianity.
It's these kind of statements that lose me. If I DIDN'T think the Catholic Church was created by Jesus, Himself, on Peter, the rock, complete with Jesus given Authority and His protection as so stated in Matthew, and the authoritative editor of the Bible, thus making it superior by God, Himself, why the &^%$ would I go there? I can tell you, it's not because of the music.
I love your ecumenism, but quit being a weenie. Say it like it is. I don't have any problem saying the Catholic Church is better. Jesus made it so. It is better because it is comprehensive and authoritative. Everything else is a man with a Bible and an opinion devoid of context, tradition and most importantly, authority. But your way is nicer....I guess.
It's these kind of statements that lose me. If I DIDN'T think the Catholic Church was created by Jesus, Himself, on Peter, the rock, complete with Jesus given Authority and His protection as so stated in Matthew, and the authoritative editor of the Bible, thus making it superior by God, Himself, why the &^%$ would I go there? I can tell you, it's not because of the music.
I love your ecumenism, but quit being a weenie. Say it like it is. I don't have any problem saying the Catholic Church is better. Jesus made it so. It is better because it is comprehensive and authoritative. Everything else is a man with a Bible and an opinion devoid of context, tradition and most importantly, authority. But your way is nicer....I guess.
I tend to agree with you, but I see other Christians as being part of the Church even if they are not aware,
It's these kind of statements that lose me. If I DIDN'T think the Catholic Church was created by Jesus, Himself, on Peter, the rock, complete with Jesus given Authority and His protection as so stated in Matthew, and the authoritative editor of the Bible, thus making it superior by God, Himself, why the &^%$ would I go there? I can tell you, it's not because of the music.
I love your ecumenism, but quit being a weenie. Say it like it is. I don't have any problem saying the Catholic Church is better. Jesus made it so. It is better because it is comprehensive and authoritative. Everything else is a man with a Bible and an opinion devoid of context, tradition and most importantly, authority. But your way is nicer....I guess.
A bigger question is, which branch of the original universal church is right and which is wrong? The Roman Catholic Church is just one branch-off from the original. Some say that the Pope of Alexandria or Constantinople are the true and truly authoritative head of all Christendom. What makes them wrong and the RCC right? Then you have the Armenian Church, the Eastern (Assyrian) Church, etc. Each can trace their line of authority directly through Christ's apostles and Christ himself. What makes the Roman Catholic Church right and the other ancient branches of the original Church wrong? After all, they did disagree sufficiently to split and discontinue formal communion with one another. Is the RCC right purely by virtue of attrition? The other ancient apostolic churches were overrun by the Islamic conquests, but Rome was not overrun. Are they more correct today only because they are significantly larger in number? They are most certainly not the only ones claiming line of authority via Peter, saying that Rome is the sole inheritor of the keys given to Peter, while it sounds very nice, requires a lot of jumping to unfounded historical conclusions and making assumptions to fill in the gaps. During the great councils of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, Constantinople was clearly center of Christendom and the great Christian city. When did that change? Did God change it? Was it God who made Constantinople, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem preeminently important in his Church and Kingdom or was it all due to their geopolitical importance? Other than politics and earthly power, why do Rome and Constantinople become the most important? Does God grant authority on the basis of where the Roman Empire chooses to place its capital cities? Does God invest authority on the basis of politics and earthly power at all? And does the age of the religious denomination really matter? If older = truer, then we all need to convert to Judaism.
In the end, there is no denomination in Christendom that is not a branch split off of the original tree and the RCC is no different. You may choose to believe that your religion is the one and only successor of Christ's legitimate original Church, but there isn't enough evidence to prove it beyond all doubt. The business of filling in the blanks, and thereby transferring the keys from Peter to Rome and only Rome -- that is your sacred tradition. Other counter claimants to original linear apostolic authority have a sacred tradition that contradicts yours. But the pre-Constantine Christian Church was as almost diverse Protestantism is today. Most of Protestantism claims there was no need for centralized authority in the hands of an Emperor or a Pope or anything of the sort, but that the priesthood authority from God had been granted equally to all believers. That is their sacred tradition. Restorationism has its own diverse sacred traditions as well.
I think that interdenominational bickering is a direct result of one obvious fact: Every question of doctrine has a correct answer. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God or he is not. Either Jesus paid the price for the sins of all humankind or he did not. Either the traditional Trinity is an accurate description of God or it is not. Rome either inherited the keys of sole leadership of all Christianity or it did not. The immaculate conception is either a true description of Mary or it is not. Born again Christians formula for salvation is either true or it is not. Either the Bible is inerrant or it is not. There is such a thing as absolute truth. Until the time comes that God gives each of us all of the correct answers to all of humanity, there will never be and end to the business of "My Truth > Your Truth."
Actually, Luther wanted to reform the church--he didn't consider it to be apostate.
Of course he did. He thought it had evolved from the original Church Christ established to such a degree that it needed a major overall.
Quote:
I believe there have always been Christians on earth since the time of Christ.
I do, too, millions of them.
Quote:
I believe Jesus when he said that hell would never prevail.
Actually, He said that the "gates of hell" would not prevail over His Church. And when His statement is understood in the way an early Jewish convert to Christianity would have understood it, the gates of hell never have prevailed and never will.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
