Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Hope is There of Change Within the Roman Catholic Church?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Hope is There of Change Within the Roman Catholic Church?

    Some folks who were raised in the RCC, but are now born-again Christians, are driven by misguided loyalties, and so they remain in the RCC convinced that , despite its faults it can change and truly be Christ's church. They know that the RCC does not preach the gospel, that the Mass is not what the Church says it is, and that a priest cannot absolve sins. Nevertheless, they remain, thinking that Christ is there.
    But - Christ is NOT there. He is not in the Eucharist. He is not in the tabernacle of the main altar. He is not hanging on the life-size crucifix suspended by cables over the priest's head. Christ does not dwell in buildings, but in the hearts of the redeemed. And where the gospel is not preached, the people remain dead in their sins, void of the life of God.
    The same question might be asked of these born-again Catholics looking for the Lord Jesus in the RCC. "He is not here, but He has risen!" the angel told the women at Christ's tomb. Do you agree that these Roman Catholics need to realize that the same is true of the Church of Rome. Christ is NOT there.

  • john t
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    I am a bit confused....when you say 'nothing missing', where are our posts? Why did you 'flag' it?
    Not to worry.
    Mods need to know if there is a software glitvh

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Stanton
    replied
    Originally posted by john t View Post
    I flagged that yesterday, but the posts I made in response all went to page 13. Nothing missing.
    I am a bit confused....when you say 'nothing missing', where are our posts? Why did you 'flag' it?

    Leave a comment:


  • john t
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    For some reason our exchanges [page 12?] have been deleted....
    I flagged that yesterday, but the posts I made in response all went to page 13. Nothing missing.


    <>
    This is getting tiresome because both of us can quote mine Augustine all day, and still not come to an agreement. Suffice it to say that there are indeed evidences of RCC thoughts AS WELL AS statements such as on "sola Scriotura" (and others) which support Evangelical Christianity.

    No one can "win " this one.

    As to the issue of Cyril, that is another issue, and my argument with you is based on the usage of Greek unicals. Since he was part of the Eastern church, it is almost certain that he wrote in Greek, using the same style of writing that we see in the mss of the NT written then.

    therefore, your argument is based upon the presumption that the editors who added to the text the lower cases of letters and grammar (etc) know what Cyril meant to say. that is a philosophy called presentism, and it really distorts things.
    Last edited by john t; 09-12-19, 10:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Stanton
    replied
    Originally posted by john t View Post


    Frankly, what you suggest is immaterial to my point.Here it is another way:

    When you quoted Cyril, you did so with modern grammar and punctuation. Further by your capitalization of the word "catholic" you assumed that he was talking about the RCC.

    I did not reply this way, but your interpretation is an anachronism, something out of time and place. The RCC did not come into existence until Constantine. As Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444, Cyril was involved in many Christology controversies, but to assume that he actually meant the RCC, as you believe he did, needs to have further evidence, which you, as the proponent of that position would need to provide because as the one asserting your claim, you need to find evidence for it.
    For some reason our exchanges [page 12?] have been deleted.... I am responding to your claim that Augustine was more Evangelical than Catholic....

    Augustine

    Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

    Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).



    I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

    What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

    Leave a comment:


  • john t
    replied
    PHILOMENA WROTE:
    • . she called Him "my Savior" because she was already saved!
    You are then saying that the zygote of Jesus was already crucified at the same time as He was conceived??????????

    This is the conclusion that your statement leads us to believe and that this is what RCC theology teaches. Sorry, but that is simply preposterous.

    Leave a comment:


  • john t
    replied

    We can go the simple route....were Clement [Rome], Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Clement [Alexandria], Cyril, Ambrose, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil, Jerome, and John Chrysostom Catholic?
    Frankly, what you suggest is immaterial to my point.Here it is another way:

    When you quoted Cyril, you did so with modern grammar and punctuation. Further by your capitalization of the word "catholic" you assumed that he was talking about the RCC.

    I did not reply this way, but your interpretation is an anachronism, something out of time and place. The RCC did not come into existence until Constantine. As Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444, Cyril was involved in many Christology controversies, but to assume that he actually meant the RCC, as you believe he did, needs to have further evidence, which you, as the proponent of that position would need to provide because as the one asserting your claim, you need to find evidence for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Philomena
    replied
    Originally posted by john t View Post

    Even Mary admitted that
    1. She had a sin nature
    1. Mary never said that. And Scripture doesn't say that anyone has a sin nature. We have a human nature.

      Nature is the essence of something. We are not created by God to be sin, but to be human, in the glorious way that He envisioned us to be and restored us to one day be.

    2. Thus she needed a Savior.
    She didn't say she needed a Savior..

  • .[INDENT]]Luke 1: 47 And my spirit was glad on God my Savior,
    48 Because He looked on the lowliness of His maid-servant, For, lo, henceforth call me happy shall all the generations. CRASH!
    ... she called Him "my Savior" because she was already saved!

    Another Roman heresy is disproved by Scripture, and this time by the very words of Mary, whom y'all erroneously claim is a sinless person
    Sorry!

    Blessings

Leave a comment:


  • Arch Stanton
    replied
    Originally posted by john t View Post

    Quote mining??

    Here are some Protestant things he wrote about:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

    Later in the fourth and fifth centuries, Augustine of Hippo (354–430) also taught that God orders all things while preserving human freedom.[12] Prior to 396, Augustine believed that predestination was based on God's foreknowledge of whether individuals would believe, that God's grace was "a reward for human assent".[13] Later, in response to Pelagius, Augustine said that the sin of pride consists in assuming that "we are the ones who choose God or that God chooses us (in his foreknowledge) because of something worthy in us", and argued that it is God's grace that causes the individual act of faith.[14] Scholars are divided over whether Augustine's teaching implies double predestination, or the belief that God chooses some people for damnation as well as some for salvation. Catholic scholars tend to deny that he held such a view while some Protestants and secular scholars affirm that Augustine did believe in double predestination.[15]
    1. Levering 2011, p. 44.
    2. ^ Levering 2011, p. 48-49.
    3. ^ Levering 2011, p. 47–48.
    Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths Matthew Levering

    OUP Oxford, May 26, 2011
    1. James 1998, p. 102.
    On the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

    In his famous Letter to Jerome (no. 82 ca. 405) Augustine says:
    I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.
    Augustine was not a "perfect Protestant" because he did believe in important RCC doctrines, such as the Real Presence, and baptismal regeneration. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the formation of Christian evolved from understanding (or misunderstanding) what other giants of the faith wrote. The examples of Pelagous, Nestorius and others remind us of that.

    So when we see the writings of Augustine through the eyes if the 21st Century, it is important that we do not let that 1800+ years of learning and debating give us a false impression. Early Christian theology was evolving, and it continues to do so. what does not evolve is the existent manuscripts, and it is there, and nowhere else from which we must derive our theology.
    [no quote mining John, just prepared for those that aren't deep in history.....'To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant' - Cardinal Newman]

    This Augustine John?

    Augustine

    I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar having been sanctified by the word of God is the body of Christ, That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ(Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

    What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).


    Leave a comment:


  • john t
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    This Augustine?

    Augustine

    Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

    Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
    Quote mining??

    Here are some Protestant things he wrote about:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

    Later in the fourth and fifth centuries, Augustine of Hippo (354430) also taught that God orders all things while preserving human freedom.[12] Prior to 396, Augustine believed that predestination was based on God's foreknowledge of whether individuals would believe, that God's grace was "a reward for human assent".[13] Later, in response to Pelagius, Augustine said that the sin of pride consists in assuming that "we are the ones who choose God or that God chooses us (in his foreknowledge) because of something worthy in us", and argued that it is God's grace that causes the individual act of faith.[14] Scholars are divided over whether Augustine's teaching implies double predestination, or the belief that God chooses some people for damnation as well as some for salvation. Catholic scholars tend to deny that he held such a view while some Protestants and secular scholars affirm that Augustine did believe in double predestination.[15]
    1. Levering 2011, p. 44.
    2. ^ Levering 2011, p. 48-49.
    3. ^ Levering 2011, p. 4748.
    Predestination: Biblical and Theological Paths Matthew Levering

    OUP Oxford, May 26, 2011
    1. James 1998, p. 102.
    On the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:

    In his famous Letter to Jerome (no. 82 ca. 405) Augustine says:
    I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.
    Augustine was not a "perfect Protestant" because he did believe in important RCC doctrines, such as the Real Presence, and baptismal regeneration. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the formation of Christian evolved from understanding (or misunderstanding) what other giants of the faith wrote. The examples of Pelagous, Nestorius and others remind us of that.

    So when we see the writings of Augustine through the eyes if the 21st Century, it is important that we do not let that 1800+ years of learning and debating give us a false impression. Early Christian theology was evolving, and it continues to do so. what does not evolve is the existent manuscripts, and it is there, and nowhere else from which we must derive our theology.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Stanton
    replied
    Originally posted by john t View Post

    You are proving that you never read Augustine. I have
    This Augustine?

    Augustine

    Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

    Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

    Leave a comment:


  • john t
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    I almost took you seriously [history], until I read the above [in red]
    You are proving that you never read Augustine. I have

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Stanton
    replied
    Originally posted by john t View Post

    No, they were Christians.

    You must see that most of these people came before Nicaea in 325. and Augustine, if you ever read him is more in the Evangelical lineage than in the RCC lineage
    I almost took you seriously [history], until I read the above [in red]

    Leave a comment:


  • Calsgal
    replied
    Originally posted by rldlolbeding View Post

    The church Jesus established has never "become apostate."
    Ohhh yea it has...

    Leave a comment:


  • john t
    replied
    Originally posted by Philomena View Post

    So David's child (and by extension - everyone's child) didn't need a Savior.

    You are agreeing, it seems, with Bob.

    Did David really know beyond all doubt that he would see his child again, or did he say this out of a grieving father's hope? If so, then there must be Jewish teaching on this matter that you are agreeing with. What would that doctrine be?

    Blessings
    Even Mary admitted that
    1. She had a sin nature
    2. Thus she needed a Savior.
    .
    Luke 1: 47 And my spirit was glad on God my Savior,
    48 Because He looked on the lowliness of His maid-servant, For, lo, henceforth call me happy shall all the generations
    .
    CRASH!

    Another Roman heresy is disproved by Scripture, and this time by the very words of Mary, whom y'all erroneously claim is a sinless person

    Leave a comment:

  • Working...
    X