Quote:
Yep. They were the authors of the 66 books of the Bible and we are not.
That's not to say that all truth isn't God's truth.
We are so close, but yet so far away on this.
Is that really true though? We had a unified vision of Christianity in the early church but if you look today at the Protestant landscape it's extremely fragmented. How one denomination views Christ, the church, sacraments, resurrection, heaven/hell can be utterly different from the other. I think this is caused by moving the faith to the individual. Culture takes over your worldview. For example Luther was heavily influenced by the Rhineland Mystics. That caused a massive shift in the western conscience.bigcat22 said:
Would you say then that you believe in Sola Scriptura?
And, for reference, Sola Scriptura meaning that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
Agreed. I think perhaps the some of the terms and ideas miss the mark on that. I'm Catholic after the majority of my life in protestant (Baptist) churches. My best friend is still S. Baptist and we have no worry that the other is saved and living a faith based life. Sure there are fringes, but you're right Frok, its no way to bring Christian brothers and sisters together.Frok said:Quote:
This is a very major contrast with so much Protestant worship, which is very stagey and often featuring Buddy Christ via a charismatic speaker.
All Protestants should convert.
Stopped reading here. This is like me telling catholics they worship Mary.
Larry Lajitas said:What is your conclusion?AgLiving06 said:
I appreciate that this is your opinion on the subject as you've said several times.
My response will continue to be, that in my read of the Scriptures, as well as the church fathers, I don't come to the same conclusion as you.
Great questions. Let me dissect these a little.Quote:
Would you say then that you believe in Sola Scriptura?
And, for reference, Sola Scriptura meaning that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
I will say that the attempts of the two churches trying to come to general consensus has been interesting. Not just during the reformation but recently as well. I bought a book called Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue but the book fell apart at the seams. Need to order a new copy.AgLiving06 said:Larry Lajitas said:What is your conclusion?AgLiving06 said:
I appreciate that this is your opinion on the subject as you've said several times.
My response will continue to be, that in my read of the Scriptures, as well as the church fathers, I don't come to the same conclusion as you.
Well...I'm Lutheran, so my conclusion so far has been that it's the best representation of the ancient church. And I mean this in more than how long a liturgy has been in use, but what the fathers actually believed and taught from the Scriptures.
DirtDiver said:Great questions. Let me dissect these a little.Quote:
Would you say then that you believe in Sola Scriptura?
And, for reference, Sola Scriptura meaning that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
1. One can hear the gospel message that God created the world, defines right and wrong, and we have sinned against God. God in his mercy sent His Son Jesus to die and rise again for payment for their sins. Once a person believes that Jesus did this for them, they are saved through their belief or faith in jesus.
One can do this without ever going to church, being baptized, or knowing there is such thing as a bible.
God saves through faith in Jesus.
2. Now Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to mankind, is true, and able to lead people to faith in Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.
3. Scripture will not speak to every instance that we will experience in life as there are gray areas in which the conscious convincts. Romans 13 and 14. Example: eating food sacrificed to idols, celebrating with a christmas tree or on december 25th. Where there is no clear example in scripture there is freedom with the qualifier that we as believers in Jesus are not defiling our conscious.
The more we understand what the scriptures teach the more we understand the moral standards of God and where we have freedom.
If a church has a doctrine or teaching that doesn't align with the scriptures then we have false teaching. (ie a person receives the spirit at baptism vs belief.)
On your own standards it would be permissible to understand how the Holy Spirit is received at infant baptism...especially since at a minimum scriptures mention baptizing households. There weren't any major objections to this until Zwingli came along (who by all accounts a major heretic). He also didn't believe that the Eucharist contained the actual body and blood of Christ. Luther opposed him on both accounts. Before the reformation we see that Tertullian opposed infant baptism but much of his teachings were deemed heretical.DirtDiver said:Great questions. Let me dissect these a little.Quote:
Would you say then that you believe in Sola Scriptura?
And, for reference, Sola Scriptura meaning that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
1. One can hear the gospel message that God created the world, defines right and wrong, and we have sinned against God. God in his mercy sent His Son Jesus to die and rise again for payment for their sins. Once a person believes that Jesus did this for them, they are saved through their belief or faith in jesus.
One can do this without ever going to church, being baptized, or knowing there is such thing as a bible.
God saves through faith in Jesus.
2. Now Scripture is God's revelation of Himself to mankind, is true, and able to lead people to faith in Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.
3. Scripture will not speak to every instance that we will experience in life as there are gray areas in which the conscious convincts. Romans 13 and 14. Example: eating food sacrificed to idols, celebrating with a christmas tree or on december 25th. Where there is no clear example in scripture there is freedom with the qualifier that we as believers in Jesus are not defiling our conscious.
The more we understand what the scriptures teach the more we understand the moral standards of God and where we have freedom.
If a church has a doctrine or teaching that doesn't align with the scriptures then we have false teaching. (ie a person receives the spirit at baptism vs belief.)
FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Larry Lajitas said:
The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.
Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.
I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.
The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .
The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."
The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.
Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.
Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?
That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.
The Catholic mass resembles the one as described by Justin Martyr in 155. The liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been celebrated since the late 300's.
Please make a case, your statements that the ancient church wouldn't recognize apostolic succession don't ring true, since we see evidence of this from the very beginning of the Church, with Matthias.
AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:Redstone said:
The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.
However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.
For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.
Thats the point I'm getting at. The differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches are real and important, yet we share Communion.
I do not view these differences as theological, but philosophically different which has caused divergent praxis although originally the void was not as large, this can be healed and should not continue as an obstacle
You do realize when people say Orthodox, they are not talking about Eastern Catholics.
The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome.
Larry Lajitas said:Eastern Orthodox churches are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Rome stands alone compared to the other ancient churches.FalconAg06 said:Redstone said:
The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.
However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.
For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.
Thats the point I'm getting at. The differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches are real and important, yet we share Communion.
I do not view these differences as theological, but philosophically different which has caused divergent praxis although originally the void was not as large, this can be healed and should not continue as an obstacle
AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Larry Lajitas said:
The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.
Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.
I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.
The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .
The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."
The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.
Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.
Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?
That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.
The Catholic mass resembles the one as described by Justin Martyr in 155. The liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been celebrated since the late 300's.
Please make a case, your statements that the ancient church wouldn't recognize apostolic succession don't ring true, since we see evidence of this from the very beginning of the Church, with Matthias.
The Reformation wasn't about getting rid of the mass. In fact, the Augsburg Confession said the following:
"Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. [2] Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, except that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. [3] For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ."
----------------------------------------
In terms of why the ancient church wouldn't recognize the modern Roman Catholic church, there's such a multitude of information out there, that I'll leave it to you to search, if you want. What ends up being your specific reason for believing or not is yours alone and I won't pretend to guess at it.
FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Larry Lajitas said:
The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.
Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.
I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.
The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .
The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."
The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.
Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.
Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?
That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.
The Catholic mass resembles the one as described by Justin Martyr in 155. The liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been celebrated since the late 300's.
Please make a case, your statements that the ancient church wouldn't recognize apostolic succession don't ring true, since we see evidence of this from the very beginning of the Church, with Matthias.
The Reformation wasn't about getting rid of the mass. In fact, the Augsburg Confession said the following:
"Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. [2] Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, except that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. [3] For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ."
----------------------------------------
In terms of why the ancient church wouldn't recognize the modern Roman Catholic church, there's such a multitude of information out there, that I'll leave it to you to search, if you want. What ends up being your specific reason for believing or not is yours alone and I won't pretend to guess at it.
The reformation was about pride and arrogance on both parties. The degeneration in belief came as natural fallout just as a second divorce often follows the first.
Luther would not have recognized Protestants and modern Protestants would think luther Catholic were they to investigate his beliefs.
Again, don't tell me to research, give me examples.
I'll give you one: The College of Cardinals,
What would they recognize:
The episcopate, marian doctrine, the real presence of the eucharist, reconciliation through the ministry of a Priest, the order of mass, etc etc
AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Larry Lajitas said:
The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.
Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.
I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.
The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .
The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."
The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.
Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.
Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?
That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.
The Catholic mass resembles the one as described by Justin Martyr in 155. The liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been celebrated since the late 300's.
Please make a case, your statements that the ancient church wouldn't recognize apostolic succession don't ring true, since we see evidence of this from the very beginning of the Church, with Matthias.
The Reformation wasn't about getting rid of the mass. In fact, the Augsburg Confession said the following:
"Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. [2] Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, except that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. [3] For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught what they need to know about Christ."
----------------------------------------
In terms of why the ancient church wouldn't recognize the modern Roman Catholic church, there's such a multitude of information out there, that I'll leave it to you to search, if you want. What ends up being your specific reason for believing or not is yours alone and I won't pretend to guess at it.
The reformation was about pride and arrogance on both parties. The degeneration in belief came as natural fallout just as a second divorce often follows the first.
Luther would not have recognized Protestants and modern Protestants would think luther Catholic were they to investigate his beliefs.
Again, don't tell me to research, give me examples.
I'll give you one: The College of Cardinals,
What would they recognize:
The episcopate, marian doctrine, the real presence of the eucharist, reconciliation through the ministry of a Priest, the order of mass, etc etc
Deflection.
marian doctrine? No they wouldn't recognize that. As was pointed out in another thread, not even St. Thomas Aquinas would recognize it.
Real Presence? Sure, but not transubstantiation.
Pope? Nope, not the supremacy taught today.
Saints? Not as robust as it has now gotten.
And so on and so on.
Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
AgLiving06 said:Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
It's a deflection to try and shift the conversation to "the reformation was about this or that" and then wholesale try and change the conversation to well "luther wouldn't recognize this or that."Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Similarities. I think the biggest similarity would be that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure they have much in common at all. Luther's view was similar, though it's not a requirement to believe that.Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
And yet the East has never held to that...Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
As I said in another post, they would recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Supremacy is not something they'd recognize. They'd actually probably point out that Peter was also (or originally) the Bishop of Antioch.
FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
It's a deflection to try and shift the conversation to "the reformation was about this or that" and then wholesale try and change the conversation to well "luther wouldn't recognize this or that."Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Similarities. I think the biggest similarity would be that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure they have much in common at all. Luther's view was similar, though it's not a requirement to believe that.Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
And yet the East has never held to that...Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
As I said in another post, they would recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Supremacy is not something they'd recognize. They'd actually probably point out that Peter was also (or originally) the Bishop of Antioch.
What about the belief that she was sinless? And was bodily assumed into Heaven? You don't find those commonalities fairly important?
The East believes the same exact thing as transubstantiation without calling it transubstantiation. They just use the "divine mystery" label without the aristotelian metaphysics.
I don't think anyone in the ancient church would point out that he was Bishop of Antioch because the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome that even you acknowledge is due to it being the seat of Peter.
AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
It's a deflection to try and shift the conversation to "the reformation was about this or that" and then wholesale try and change the conversation to well "luther wouldn't recognize this or that."Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Similarities. I think the biggest similarity would be that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure they have much in common at all. Luther's view was similar, though it's not a requirement to believe that.Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
And yet the East has never held to that...Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
As I said in another post, they would recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Supremacy is not something they'd recognize. They'd actually probably point out that Peter was also (or originally) the Bishop of Antioch.
What about the belief that she was sinless? And was bodily assumed into Heaven? You don't find those commonalities fairly important?
The East believes the same exact thing as transubstantiation without calling it transubstantiation. They just use the "divine mystery" label without the aristotelian metaphysics.
I don't think anyone in the ancient church would point out that he was Bishop of Antioch because the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome that even you acknowledge is due to it being the seat of Peter.
Sure...their "commonalities" important just like it's important that when comparing a Civic and a Ferrari, you focus on the fact they are both simply cars and nothing else. What's "under the hood" is quite different.
---------------------
I'm 100% sure they would bring up that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch (believe Paul was as well at one point), especially if you want to make the claim that Rome is important because of Peter. Antioch would have at least a similar claim.
Larry Lajitas said:Islam is far more powerful. They have a rigorous worship and sacramental life unlike here where you walk into church on Sunday with your coffee and a hipster ripping on a guitar.Martin Q. Blank said:They said the same thing about Islam.CrackerJackAg said:craigernaught said:
The cycle of proselytizing on this forum, now firmly in the Catholic and Orthodox phase, is so weird.
Well, I don't know if it's a phase on this board. I can pretty much promise you if you move 1,000, 1,500 or 5,000 years from now the Apostolic Churches will still be around.
Those that went to some cool super hip husband/wife non-denominational church will be remembered as having attended some weird dead form of pseudo Christianity.
More likely than not they won't be remembered at all.
FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
It's a deflection to try and shift the conversation to "the reformation was about this or that" and then wholesale try and change the conversation to well "luther wouldn't recognize this or that."Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Similarities. I think the biggest similarity would be that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure they have much in common at all. Luther's view was similar, though it's not a requirement to believe that.Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
And yet the East has never held to that...Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
As I said in another post, they would recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Supremacy is not something they'd recognize. They'd actually probably point out that Peter was also (or originally) the Bishop of Antioch.
What about the belief that she was sinless? And was bodily assumed into Heaven? You don't find those commonalities fairly important?
The East believes the same exact thing as transubstantiation without calling it transubstantiation. They just use the "divine mystery" label without the aristotelian metaphysics.
I don't think anyone in the ancient church would point out that he was Bishop of Antioch because the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome that even you acknowledge is due to it being the seat of Peter.
Sure...their "commonalities" important just like it's important that when comparing a Civic and a Ferrari, you focus on the fact they are both simply cars and nothing else. What's "under the hood" is quite different.
---------------------
I'm 100% sure they would bring up that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch (believe Paul was as well at one point), especially if you want to make the claim that Rome is important because of Peter. Antioch would have at least a similar claim.
I think you're a guy who has dug in that isn't able to wave the white flag. You've gone from saying that the Orthodox and the Catholics don't share much regarding the Marian beliefs other than her perpetual virginity, and then said her sinlessness and assumption/dormition were also shared, but were like a Honda and a Ferrari. Why don't you explain where their Marian beliefs diverge? I'll give you a hint: her sinlessness, although that's more of a logical outflow from the different POV's regarding original sin.
You claimed above that the ancient church would recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but not the Supremacy. Why would the Bishop of Rome have any Primacy, other than the Apostolic Succession from Peter?
Quote:
While much that the Orthodox say of Mary "sounds" similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels.
AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
It's a deflection to try and shift the conversation to "the reformation was about this or that" and then wholesale try and change the conversation to well "luther wouldn't recognize this or that."Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Similarities. I think the biggest similarity would be that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure they have much in common at all. Luther's view was similar, though it's not a requirement to believe that.Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
And yet the East has never held to that...Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
As I said in another post, they would recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Supremacy is not something they'd recognize. They'd actually probably point out that Peter was also (or originally) the Bishop of Antioch.
What about the belief that she was sinless? And was bodily assumed into Heaven? You don't find those commonalities fairly important?
The East believes the same exact thing as transubstantiation without calling it transubstantiation. They just use the "divine mystery" label without the aristotelian metaphysics.
I don't think anyone in the ancient church would point out that he was Bishop of Antioch because the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome that even you acknowledge is due to it being the seat of Peter.
Sure...their "commonalities" important just like it's important that when comparing a Civic and a Ferrari, you focus on the fact they are both simply cars and nothing else. What's "under the hood" is quite different.
---------------------
I'm 100% sure they would bring up that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch (believe Paul was as well at one point), especially if you want to make the claim that Rome is important because of Peter. Antioch would have at least a similar claim.
I think you're a guy who has dug in that isn't able to wave the white flag. You've gone from saying that the Orthodox and the Catholics don't share much regarding the Marian beliefs other than her perpetual virginity, and then said her sinlessness and assumption/dormition were also shared, but were like a Honda and a Ferrari. Why don't you explain where their Marian beliefs diverge? I'll give you a hint: her sinlessness, although that's more of a logical outflow from the different POV's regarding original sin.
You claimed above that the ancient church would recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but not the Supremacy. Why would the Bishop of Rome have any Primacy, other than the Apostolic Succession from Peter?
Dug in on what? You've made no point at all except that you keep saying over and over that "we are like the orthodox." It's interesting that it's almost like a guilt trip that I see from Catholics who want so desperately to be approved by the Orthodox. I've sat through the introductory classes to Orthodoxy. They tend to make it pretty clear who caused the schism and what repentance is needed for reunification to take place.
Here's a quick link: OCA.org
With this nice blurb at the end:Quote:
While much that the Orthodox say of Mary "sounds" similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels.
So yeah...my car example works quite well.
----------------------------------
My claim is that papal supremacy would not be recognized and that the titles bestowed on Rome simply because of Peter.
In fact, at a quick google search, it seems to be that a thought is that because of Peter and Paul's life and eventual martyrdom in Rome, that's what made it such an important place.
Either way, my original claim continues to stand unopposed.
FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:FalconAg06 said:AgLiving06 said:Quote:
How is this a deflection? You said "they wouldn't recognize the Catholic church" and I said "yes they would and here is why"
It's a deflection to try and shift the conversation to "the reformation was about this or that" and then wholesale try and change the conversation to well "luther wouldn't recognize this or that."Quote:
Really? How do you explain the similarities between the Orthodox and Catholics beliefs on Mary? Forget them, what about Luther's beliefs on Mary?
Similarities. I think the biggest similarity would be that she remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Beyond that, I'm not sure they have much in common at all. Luther's view was similar, though it's not a requirement to believe that.Quote:
The early church would absolutely understand transubstantiation as they had to explain how they were eating Christ's very body and blood without gnawing on his arm.
And yet the East has never held to that...Quote:
And yes, they would recognize the Pope. The title, the Apostolic See of Rome, his Primacy, and his succession from Peter.
As I said in another post, they would recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Supremacy is not something they'd recognize. They'd actually probably point out that Peter was also (or originally) the Bishop of Antioch.
What about the belief that she was sinless? And was bodily assumed into Heaven? You don't find those commonalities fairly important?
The East believes the same exact thing as transubstantiation without calling it transubstantiation. They just use the "divine mystery" label without the aristotelian metaphysics.
I don't think anyone in the ancient church would point out that he was Bishop of Antioch because the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome that even you acknowledge is due to it being the seat of Peter.
Sure...their "commonalities" important just like it's important that when comparing a Civic and a Ferrari, you focus on the fact they are both simply cars and nothing else. What's "under the hood" is quite different.
---------------------
I'm 100% sure they would bring up that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch (believe Paul was as well at one point), especially if you want to make the claim that Rome is important because of Peter. Antioch would have at least a similar claim.
I think you're a guy who has dug in that isn't able to wave the white flag. You've gone from saying that the Orthodox and the Catholics don't share much regarding the Marian beliefs other than her perpetual virginity, and then said her sinlessness and assumption/dormition were also shared, but were like a Honda and a Ferrari. Why don't you explain where their Marian beliefs diverge? I'll give you a hint: her sinlessness, although that's more of a logical outflow from the different POV's regarding original sin.
You claimed above that the ancient church would recognize the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but not the Supremacy. Why would the Bishop of Rome have any Primacy, other than the Apostolic Succession from Peter?
Dug in on what? You've made no point at all except that you keep saying over and over that "we are like the orthodox." It's interesting that it's almost like a guilt trip that I see from Catholics who want so desperately to be approved by the Orthodox. I've sat through the introductory classes to Orthodoxy. They tend to make it pretty clear who caused the schism and what repentance is needed for reunification to take place.
Here's a quick link: OCA.org
With this nice blurb at the end:Quote:
While much that the Orthodox say of Mary "sounds" similar to that which is taught by Roman Catholicism, there are serious differences on many levels.
So yeah...my car example works quite well.
----------------------------------
My claim is that papal supremacy would not be recognized and that the titles bestowed on Rome simply because of Peter.
In fact, at a quick google search, it seems to be that a thought is that because of Peter and Paul's life and eventual martyrdom in Rome, that's what made it such an important place.
Either way, my original claim continues to stand unopposed.
Orthodoxy and Catholicism comprise ancient Christianity, as. Catholic defending Catholicism, we only have the Orthodox to draw similarities to. As I said, the beliefs on the Blessed Virgin Mary/Theotokos are extremely similar with the main difference being the mechanism of her sinlessness.
If you have to Google search to find your argument, you didn't have an argument to begin with, you had a belief held without fact, which you took to Google to try and find support for.
Quote:
On your own standards it would be permissible to understand how the Holy Spirit is received at infant baptism...especially since at a minimum scriptures mention baptizing households. There weren't any major objections to this until Zwingli came along (who by all accounts a major heretic). He also didn't believe that the Eucharist contained the actual body and blood of Christ. Luther opposed him on both accounts. Before the reformation we see that Tertullian opposed infant baptism but much of his teachings were deemed heretical.
Another issue is that it sounds like your framework of belief is set solely as a product of reason. The fact that you would leave out children is odd.
DirtDiver said:Quote:
On your own standards it would be permissible to understand how the Holy Spirit is received at infant baptism...especially since at a minimum scriptures mention baptizing households. There weren't any major objections to this until Zwingli came along (who by all accounts a major heretic). He also didn't believe that the Eucharist contained the actual body and blood of Christ. Luther opposed him on both accounts. Before the reformation we see that Tertullian opposed infant baptism but much of his teachings were deemed heretical.
Another issue is that it sounds like your framework of belief is set solely as a product of reason. The fact that you would leave out children is odd.
I may have a little trouble connecting all of the dots to reply to this statement however I'll try.
1. I believe the Holy Spirit is received as the moment of faith and has nothing to do with water baptism. (Eph. 1:13-14, Acts 19:2, people receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism in Acts 9, Jesus words in John 7:39)
2. I don't believe the Eucharist contains the actual body of Christ. (1 Lords supper when Jesus broke the break His body was intact and he was giving them bread. There are multiple "I AM" statements in John in which Jesus is using figurative language to communicate truth. I am the Light, I am the true bread, I am the door, I am the good shepherd, I am the resurrection and the life, I am in the Father, I and the true vine, I am a king. Recognizing the literary style of the gospel of John is key to understanding the claims within each context. Is Jesus literally wheat that people injest that turns to flesh, light waves and particles, a wooden door with hinges, or a grape vine?
3. Babies - there are a few references in the scripture about he salvation of children but no where does it teach that water baptism saves them from anything other than maybe physical dirt. I believe God would be just taking babies, little children, mentally challenged people to heaven who do not have the capacity to believe in the gospel.
Quote:
I think there's some problems with points 2 and 3.
On point 2, Jesus certainly used parables with "I AM", but those were clarified for the Apostles. In this case, He knew he'd be going to his death hours later. If this was figurative, He used it knowing he would not be able to explain it, and the Apostles did not see need to explain it.
Further, we see from that point on, the "I am" becomes literal. When arrested, it's "I am he." With Pilate, it's "who do you say I am." in all cases, the "I am" becomes specific and not figurative.
It could be the case that children and infants were baptized and it could be the case that they were not. The scriptures are not clear on this point. Assuming they were is irrelevant to the point I making because the scriptures are clear the water baptism is not require for salvation.Quote:
Point 3, is the weakest argument you could make though. We see a lot of instances, usually in Acts, of groups of people being baptized. We don't ever see instances of Jesus or the Apostles excluding children from these groups. If you go by the text, you can't exclude them.
It would only create a theological issue for one who believes that water baptism is required for salvation or removes original sin. Where does the age of accountability end, I have no clue. I just know what each one is accountable to God at some point in their life to place their faith in Jesus. I'm simply saying that I'm not convinced that a 1 year old has that capacity to understand Jesus' death and resurrection applied to their own sins.Quote:
I think the second argument you make about "babies, children, mentally challenged is independent on whether children should be baptized or not. I think it actually creates a theological issue to take this approach because you're actually putting a test up of what is sufficient faith.
Quote:
Yes, there are instances in which Jesus uses the I AM phrase in a literal sense. There are also instances in which he uses the I AM phrase in a figurative sense.
When a person says, I AM the vine and you are the branches, I AM the door, I am the bread of life - we must we wise enough not to translate these instances as literal.
Quote:
It could be the case that children and infants were baptized and it could be the case that they were not. The scriptures are not clear on this point. Assuming they were is irrelevant to the point I making because the scriptures are clear the water baptism is not require for salvation.
Quote:
It would only create a theological issue for one who believes that water baptism is required for salvation or removes original sin. Where does the age of accountability end, I have no clue. I just know what each one is accountable to God at some point in their life to place their faith in Jesus. I'm simply saying that I'm not convinced that a 1 year old has that capacity to understand Jesus' death and resurrection applied to their own sins.
I'll just comment on #2. There's not really any debate on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist during the early church. This is a western phenomenon. One of the reasons is that culturally people back then were Platonists. So if you asked someone with this worldview if Christ's presence in the Eucharist was real or symbolic they would say "yes". My Orthodox priest would say something like "It's a mystery beyond understanding." For the record I don't think anyone here is saying that if you put it under a microscope you will find human flesh and blood. You would be completely missing the point if you thought that.DirtDiver said:Quote:
On your own standards it would be permissible to understand how the Holy Spirit is received at infant baptism...especially since at a minimum scriptures mention baptizing households. There weren't any major objections to this until Zwingli came along (who by all accounts a major heretic). He also didn't believe that the Eucharist contained the actual body and blood of Christ. Luther opposed him on both accounts. Before the reformation we see that Tertullian opposed infant baptism but much of his teachings were deemed heretical.
Another issue is that it sounds like your framework of belief is set solely as a product of reason. The fact that you would leave out children is odd.
I may have a little trouble connecting all of the dots to reply to this statement however I'll try.
1. I believe the Holy Spirit is received as the moment of faith and has nothing to do with water baptism. (Eph. 1:13-14, Acts 19:2, people receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism in Acts 9, Jesus words in John 7:39)
2. I don't believe the Eucharist contains the actual body of Christ. (1 Lords supper when Jesus broke the break His body was intact and he was giving them bread. There are multiple "I AM" statements in John in which Jesus is using figurative language to communicate truth. I am the Light, I am the true bread, I am the door, I am the good shepherd, I am the resurrection and the life, I am in the Father, I and the true vine, I am a king. Recognizing the literary style of the gospel of John is key to understanding the claims within each context. Is Jesus literally wheat that people injest that turns to flesh, light waves and particles, a wooden door with hinges, or a grape vine?
3. Babies - there are a few references in the scripture about he salvation of children but no where does it teach that water baptism saves them from anything other than maybe physical dirt. I believe God would be just taking babies, little children, mentally challenged people to heaven who do not have the capacity to believe in the gospel.
