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.
The Catholic Church has tried to justify its contradiction by coming up with this elaborate explanation of the bread being the fullness of Christ. There is no such teaching in Scripture.
What about the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, who for a millennium and a half did not even know of the existence of the scripture you worship but only had the sayings of Jesus brought to them by Thomas? They believed, and their church flourished as it was until the Catholic Portuguese stumbled on them in the 15th century and gave them what-for, changing their church to conform to Rome and its Bible.
Were those people not Christian in GOD'S eyes because they didn't have what humans named "His" word?
Food for thought.
Of course not because they had JESUS who is the ONE AND ONLY Word of God (Logos). The Word of God does NOT and NEVER has referred to actual words "written in ink." That is a human perversion and misunderstanding, period.
What about the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, who for a millennium and a half did not even know of the existence of the scripture you worship but only had the sayings of Jesus brought to them by Thomas? They believed, and their church flourished as it was until the Catholic Portuguese stumbled on them in the 15th century and gave them what-for, changing their church to conform to Rome and its Bible.
Were those people not Christian in GOD'S eyes because they didn't have what humans named "His" word?
Food for thought.
The Mar Thoma had all 7 sacraments. The Bible is not a sacrament.
The Portuguese were so aggressive with them out of a justifiable religious zeal. The heretical monophysite oriental churches had been exercising influence over the Mar Thoma for centuries. The Latins brought the Mar Thoma into the fold of the True Church and saved the great portion of it from falling into the monophysite heresy and dis-unity with the vicar of Christ.
Despite having drastically differing views on some major doctrinal issues, including the meaning of baptism itself?
It is the burden and the duty of every individual Catholic to assent to and believe the entire deposit of Faith - all that the Church believes and teaches. We all fail in this duty to some degree.
The teachings of the Church on any given subject are clear and easily found. There are some topics that the Church has not addressed, or has only addressed incompletely; and on these topics disagreement is permitted within certain parameters.
It is the burden and the duty of every individual Catholic to assent to and believe the entire deposit of Faith - all that the Church believes and teaches. We all fail in this duty to some degree.
The teachings of the Church on any given subject are clear and easily found. There are some topics that the Church has not addressed, or has only addressed incompletely; and on these topics disagreement is permitted within certain parameters.
That's the thing. There are popes that have literally taught opposing ideas. Including Frances and the previous Pope. There is no way that they were on the same page. And with the College of Cardinals stacked with Frankie's handpicked guys, we know it will be even MORE different when the next Pope is named.
What about the Mar Thoma Christians in Kerala, who for a millennium and a half did not even know of the existence of the scripture you worship but only had the sayings of Jesus brought to them by Thomas? They believed, and their church flourished as it was until the Catholic Portuguese stumbled on them in the 15th century and gave them what-for, changing their church to conform to Rome and its Bible.
Were those people not Christian in GOD'S eyes because they didn't have what humans named "His" word?
Food for thought.
Of course they were Christians in God's eyes. The early church was primarily established by word of mouth, and witnessing. They had nothing, no bible,no money,no cell phones but their faith was great. They also suffered under the Pagan rulers.
However In Foxes Book of martyrs it states that what the church suffered under Pagan rule was nothing in comparison to what Papal Authority laid upon them.
CIIAPTER IV
PAPAL PERSECUTIONS.
Thus far our history of persecution has been confined principally to che pagan world . We come now to a period, when persecution under the guise of christianity, committed more enormities than ever dis graced the annals of paganism.
Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the gospel, the papal church , arming herself with the power of the sword ,vexed the church of God andwasted it for severalcen curies, a period most appropriately termed in history, the " dark ayes .”
The kings of the earth , gave theirpower to the beast," and submit 'ed to be trodden on by the miserable vermin that often filled the pa nal chair , as in the case of Henry, emperor of Germany. The storm of papal persecutionfirst burst upon the Waldenses in France.
This is from Google Books and the spelling errors are from the translation. I left the text as it reads
That's the thing. There are popes that have literally taught opposing ideas. Including Frances and the previous Pope. There is no way that they were on the same page. And with the College of Cardinals stacked with Frankie's handpicked guys, we know it will be even MORE different when the next Pope is named.
The Pope is not the Church, and the Church is not a cult of the Pope.
If a Pope teaches in opposition to Church teaching, then he does just that. He doesn't alter reality.
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.