Catholic have more than 1 Bible ?
-
1) Note revelations is in heaven. The prayers of the Saints refers to glorified Christians. And even if applied to Christians, doesnt it go against your original position of Jesus alone. The fact that you constantly have to change your position highlight the error of your thinking.Originally posted by vince69:and I say to you... the prayers of the saints mentioned are those that are made when they are alive and the saints mentioned here are all believers and not just those cannonised saints.
and face it, the Catholic church today is not the same as the church that exist before 90AD, and may not even be the same as the church during the first 3 centuries.
and I am saying, church doctrines are open to questioning, and church doctrine not equal to Scriptures, questioning church doctrines and church fathers teachings are not questioning the Scriptures, question also need to have some basis, don't anyhow lump them together.
church doctrines to me are just understandings of man regarding Scritpural teachings.
Did Christ desert Christians from 90AD? nope, but many times, Christians have deserted Christ, or should I say, 'Christians' instead, even in the early church, during the times of the Apostles, false doctrines had began to slip into the church and many had been led astray away from Christ.
I shall end my discussion with you here, reason being there is nothing to discuss with you, as I do not like unnessary confrontation, least I say things I do not like to say. And as it is, you had your mind made up that there is nothing to discuss about in matters regarding to doctrines and theology and no questionings in allow.
2) Show me how different is the CC of today compared to the one in 200AD in doctrinal teachings?
3) But always in times of heresy, there is always the Truth. In times of Marcion heresy, there is the proto-orthodox led by Irenaus etc. However if intercession of the Saints is heretic, surely such a counter position must be preached and existed throughout the centuries. Instead that position never existed and if did, it never survived hence showing it cannot be the Truth (as the gates of hell will not prevail against the Truth)
4) Same goes to you abt the lack of discussion. I find it ironic that you discard teachings of the early Church, the Church fathers and even certain element of scripture for modern protestantism which never existed in Christendome (making it impossible to be the Truth). -
Yes the orthodox argument and the pentarchy. But there is numerous alludance to primacy of Rome.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually from what I read, the early "Church" was quite disunited. Rome was just one of the many patriarchy that claim apostolic succession. The bishop of Rome was respected, but it did not have primacy over other patriarchs. I respect you doesn't mean you can lord over my head.
As a bishop of Rome, you would naturally use Scripture to claim primacy over other patriarchs. Why not? You think all the patriarchs buddy buddy with each other?
Ok .. let's not go into another debate on this. Just want to point out to Mr Pope .. read history with an objective eye.
Mind u the Great Schism wasnt the first Shism. The East fell into heresy numerous time and it always ended with an affirmation of primacy to the pope.
Read the -
Council of Sardica, Canon III , IV and V
Council of Ephesus, Session III
Council of Chalcedon, Session III
Throughout heretical times, there is always teh Side of Truth...im afriad the catholic chruch has consistently been there and epousing the same views of the Truth. For all other views have been defeated lest that of the CC.
Protestantism is only 5 centuries old....how long did it take to fully destroy Arianism? -
2. I suppose there are two understanding to the word. One is the earthly institution, i.e. the Catholic Church with the ecclesiastical hierarchy set out in the NT. The other is the fellowship of all believers. This one is invisible, no boundary, without walls.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:2. Well strangely i believe that is the Catholic Church. Even Orthodox brethen acknowledge that and the Reformers too.
3. If he had no deserted then why do protestants accuse the Christians of the first few centuries of heresy?
The early church (or should I say earliest church) is not that concerned with the church as institution. In fact it is argued that the earliest church is charismatic, with no visible hierarchy because the Apostle Paul did not address the leader in his letters to the various churches.
The reason is clear. Go read up on reputable scholarship on the early church. They should mention something called the parousia.
3. Indeed there were many heretical Christians in the first few centuries. -
Actually the goal of Protestantism is to go back to Scripture.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Protestantism is only 5 centuries old....how long did it take to fully destroy Arianism?
It is like the SSPX is how old only? less than 40 years? But will you dismiss their argument just because they are 40 years old and the Catholic Church is 2000? -
Both sides are flawed in my opinion.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:4) Same goes to you abt the lack of discussion. I find it ironic that you discard teachings of the early Church, the Church fathers and even certain element of scripture for modern protestantism which never existed in Christendome (making it impossible to be the Truth).
Only the revelation from Sinai is true.
Which one you believe? The Torah as given by God or 4 gospels written by 4 anonymous authors and dubiously chosen because there are 4 corners?
-
1) correction, my position have not changed, yours did (I am not afraid, lets the rest be the judge on this matter). and I don't hold to this glorified christian doctrine, all christians are the same before God cause all are in Christ. The only thing is question we have here is not can the saints who are still alive physically to interced or pray for each other, but rather can we ask those are are physically dead (or what Paul refered to as alseep) for this purpose.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) Note revelations is in heaven. The prayers of the Saints refers to glorified Christians. And even if applied to Christians, doesnt it go against your original position of Jesus alone. The fact that you constantly have to change your position highlight the error of your thinking.
2) Show me how different is the CC of today compared to the one in 200AD in doctrinal teachings?
3) But always in times of heresy, there is always the Truth. In times of Marcion heresy, there is the proto-orthodox led by Irenaus etc. However if intercession of the Saints is heretic, surely such a counter position must be preached and existed throughout the centuries. Instead that position never existed and if did, it never survived hence showing it cannot be the Truth (as the gates of hell will not prevail against the Truth)
4) Same goes to you abt the lack of discussion. I find it ironic that you discard teachings of the early Church, the Church fathers and even certain element of scripture for modern protestantism which never existed in Christendome (making it impossible to be the Truth).
2) you can go read the history books yourself, and see what are the teachings thae had changed, what are the teachings that was ok by one pope before but outlawed by the subsequent pope.
3) you know what how teachings and writings was preseved during the early times? by manual copying. what we have today from the early church teachings are manual copies, and who copy them? the scribes. then which writtings get to be preserved? who to decide? of course, only those that was taken as the norm by the authorities got to be preserved and emphasised on? don't blame anyone about this, we are all human, and human biased.
The doctrine never exist, a counter position never preach OR the church authorities don't allow questionings or contridictions?
4) I have not said, lets discard the church fathers writings or teachings, questioning them does not means discarding them, condictory to your understanding, questioning them only allow us to understand them better. Just like the Breans honor Paul by checking if his teaching is according to the Scriptures and was commented for their act, we honor the church fathers by questioning and checking on their teachings.
5) Doctrines that was not teach before, as long as its inline with the Scripture (check and double check required) does not means it wrong, its called pregressive revelations. by the way, there are doctrines in taught in the Catholic Church today that was not even taught during the days of the Apostles, so how?
ok... I shall slap myself for posting this, this shall be my last discussion with you, since you had already concluded that I am not into discussion...
Let the rest of the brethens here be the judge... -
what orthodox argument? I was talking about the early church. I suppose the Orthodox Church had not taken shape then?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Yes the orthodox argument and the pentarchy. But there is numerous alludance to primacy of Rome.
Wait a minute .. there were five patriarchies right?
1. Rome
2. Jerusalem
3. Alexandra
4. Antioch
5. Constantinople
is this why you call it the pentarchy? -
Like I said, I am biased...Originally posted by Icemoon:Both sides are flawed in my opinion.
Only the revelation from Sinai is true.
Which one you believe? The Torah as given by God or 4 gospels written by 4 anonymous authors and dubiously chosen because there are 4 corners? -
not seven meh?Originally posted by Icemoon:what orthodox argument? I was talking about the early church. I suppose the Orthodox Church had not taken shape then?
Wait a minute .. there were five patriarchies right?
1. Rome
2. Jerusalem
3. Alexandra
4. Antioch
5. Constantinople
is this why you call it the pentarchy?
Rev 1: 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
btw
pentarchy <> patriarchies
patriarchies are the forefathers of the Israel (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons ..etc ..)
pentarchy are refering to the 'mega' churches of their times, the so called power centers. -
nay .. you got everything mixed up.Originally posted by vince69:not seven meh?
Rev 1: 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."
btw
pentarchy <> patriarchies
patriarchies are the forefathers of the Israel (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons ..etc ..)
my mistake .. should be PATRIARCHATES. Patriarchs are the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope.
Read about the THE FIVE PATRIARCHATES here - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm -
hee hee, I rather put the Patriarchs above the Pope... afterall they exist before the Pope... and one of them was even mentioned by God as His friend and get to talk to God directly and even bargain with Him somemoreOriginally posted by Icemoon:nay .. you got everything mixed up.
my mistake .. should be PATRIARCHATES. Patriarchs are the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope.
Read about the THE FIVE PATRIARCHATES here - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm -
To Unker CE, and Boss Sillyme
My aplogy for allowing this to be drawn into yet another Catholic vs Prostestant debate... -
The last time I heard, our one party government has always been there and espousing the same views of the Truth.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Throughout heretical times, there is always teh Side of Truth...im afriad the catholic chruch has consistently been there and epousing the same views of the Truth. For all other views have been defeated lest that of the CC.
For all other views, barisan socialis, WP, SDP etc., have been defeated lest that of the government.
Our ministers have *never* lost in any legal battle before.
Sounds familiar? -
hey.. pope still haven answer my simple question.. if we can ask those in heaven to intercede for us, which according to u is more effective than christians on earth because they are glorified and closer to God.. y didn't any of the apostles ask moses or elijah to intercede for them? remember moses was the onli person who literally SAW God on earth.. i bet his prayers must be real powerful and effective.. y didn't the apostles take advantage of asking moses to intercede for them? lets just settle this point 1st alrite? thanx thanx..
-
Why need Moses when you can talk face to face with God in the person of Jesus Christ?
-
When Catholics say saints, they don't mean the prophets do they?
The question should be why don't Catholics ask Moses, Elijah or Enoch for help? -
They had the Son of God next to them and technically they too saw God face to face....so why Moses?Originally posted by VivId CrItiQuE:hey.. pope still haven answer my simple question.. if we can ask those in heaven to intercede for us, which according to u is more effective than christians on earth because they are glorified and closer to God.. y didn't any of the apostles ask moses or elijah to intercede for them? remember moses was the onli person who literally SAW God on earth.. i bet his prayers must be real powerful and effective.. y didn't the apostles take advantage of asking moses to intercede for them? lets just settle this point 1st alrite? thanx thanx..
This is unlike us. -
Saints - glorified Christians in heaven...any Christian in heaven.Originally posted by Icemoon:When Catholics say saints, they don't mean the prophets do they?
The question should be why don't Catholics ask Moses, Elijah or Enoch for help?
Moses, Elijah, Enoch - not christian i suppose LOL
Dont jews practice praying for the dead...its in Maccabees??? -
Pope - Patriach of Rome.Originally posted by vince69:hee hee, I rather put the Patriarchs above the Pope... afterall they exist before the Pope... and one of them was even mentioned by God as His friend and get to talk to God directly and even bargain with Him somemore
Eastern Orthodox - First among equals....position of honor
Catholic (Western Christianity) - primacy of Peter.
However there is numerous evidence for the primacy of Rome and the pentacy ceased to exist after the other Sees fell into heresy and Constantipole fell into Muslim control. Rome alone was able to stand against the heresy and influence of the Emperor.
Goes to show Rome rawks aniwaes...
Church Fathers tend to show primacy of Rome....even Irenaus. -
-
I think the other Sees all fell into Muslim control eventually.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:However there is numerous evidence for the primacy of Rome and the pentacy ceased to exist after the other Sees fell into heresy and Constantipole fell into Muslim control. Rome alone was able to stand against the heresy and influence of the Emperor.
I'd say Rome cooperated with the Emperor and other head of state. Read the famous "journey to Canossa" episode. -
Thats a common misconception. There was no Emperor in the West since 300AD. The Byzantine Emperors are based in the East. The Eastern Sees were under the Emperor's influence which can be rather bad especially during Iconalasm. The Roman Patriach however alone was free from such secular interference. More importantly the other sees acknowledged its primacy. Pope Leo the Great was fine example. I think Irenaus also mentioned this.Originally posted by Icemoon:I think the other Sees all fell into Muslim control eventually.
I'd say Rome cooperated with the Emperor and other head of state. Read the famous "journey to Canossa" episode.
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
Pope Clement Epistle to the Corinthins speaks highly of his primacy since Corinth is beyond the juridisction of Rome. -
Your date is off. I'm pretty sure the Battle of Milvian Bridge happened after 300AD.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Thats a common misconception. There was no Emperor in the West since 300AD. The Byzantine Emperors are based in the East. The Eastern Sees were under the Emperor's influence which can be rather bad especially during Iconalasm. The Roman Patriach however alone was free from such secular interference. More importantly the other sees acknowledged its primacy. Pope Leo the Great was fine example. I think Irenaus also mentioned this.
Your logic is also off. If you say the Roman Patriarch was free from secular interference, then you are downplaying the various councils convened by the Emperor like Nicea, Chalcedon etc.
So is the Roman Patriarch really free from secular interference? -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Why do you use Irenaeus when you can quote from the horse mouth?
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. [b]For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180). [/b]
Show us quotes by other patriarchs that effectively say, "Rome .. you are our boss!" -
how bout after Christ has ascended to heaven? so ur saying the apostles do not haf to seek moses or elijah (i chose them as examples) because they walked with Christ? or ur implying we are inferior christians, thus we haf to seek the saints to intercede for us?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:They had the Son of God next to them and technically they too saw God face to face....so why Moses?
This is unlike us.
another point, as pope mentioned, the saints in heaven are not superhumans, thus we need to tell them wad prayers we need. but if all the catholics on earth submit their prayer requests to the saints, can the saints pray wif superhuman speed for all the prayer requests?
i believe when christ told christians to pray for one another, the purpose is to unite christians.. to show christ's love by praying for one another.. its not as though when some1 else pray for u, its more effective, unless u admit u haf lesser faith..
Matthew 18:19-20 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
I believe this verse shows that Jesus wanted Christians to be united, it doesn't mean that ur prayers won't be answered if u pray alone, and we all know that Christ is with us even when we are alone..
thus, the main purpose of intercessory prayers are to unite christians and showing Christ's love, effectiveness is secondary.