RayB's question where RC doctrines are in Scripture. your other list dating some
doctrines is wrong. All or most have a history before that. Got it from some sources who know nothing of church history beyond the Reformation, right? And you also made reference to early church errors before Constantine, what would those be?
The Body and Blood of Christ being real perhaps?
ST. IGNATIUS WAS TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE JOHN AND TAUGHT REAL PRESENCE. THAT SHOULD SETTLE IT.
ST. IRENAEUS TAUGHT THIS AND WAS TAUGHT BY A STUDENT OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. ST. JUSTIN MARTYR TAUGHT THIS AND WAS TAUGHT BY AN AGED MAN OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE KNOWN AN APOSTLE OR TO HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY A STUDENT OF AN APOSTLE.
"how about convincing me that Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma is based on God's Word?
For example, please provide the "convincing" Scriptural proof for the following:"
THE OFFICE OF THE PRIEST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT -
presbyters elders word morphed into "priest"
but by AD 130 I guess the usual term for the leader of the elders was "president of the
assembly," presbytidos I think is the word. This is what St. Justin Martyr c. AD 150
calls the one who makes the Eucharistic prayers after which the bread and wine become
the Body and Blood of Christ. NOTICE THAT SOMEONE IS IN CHARGE OF THE MEETING, AND THAT
THE BREAD AND WINE BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. This is from the Middle East,
while St. Irenaeus says the same from Europe, so the teaching of the Church on this matter
is uniform. More on this later. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Elders/
all the verses relating to the elders, some specialized in one thing some another to judge
by the reference to those who labor in teaching. THE PRIEST IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BISHOP
WHO, WHEN CHRISTIAN POPULATION WAS SMALL, RAN EACH CITY'S ONE CHURCH. AS TIME PASSED
CONGREGATIONS MULITPLIED AND THE BISHOP RAN ALL HIS CITY'S CHURCHES AND THE LOWER LEVEL
ELDERS TOOK HIS PLACE IN THE OTHER CHURCHES. ELDER INCLUDES PRIEST ROLE, BISHOP, AND APOSTLE.
THOUGH THE LATTER OFFICE CEASED WHEN THE LAST ONE DIED. YOU HAD TO BE A WITNESS OF THE
RESURRECTION AND HAVE KNOWN JESUS PERSONALLY TO QUALIFY. PAUL MET THE RISEN JESUS. A FEW
OTHERS PROBABLY EXISTED, BUT ONCE THE LAST DIED NO MORE APOSTLES, NOTE THAT YOU NAR AND HOUSE CHURCH (NAR RECRUITMENT FIELD) BLATHERERS ABOUT "RELIGION" BEING BAD AND YOUR CULT BEING GOOD.
THAT ALL THINGS HOUILD BE DONE IN ORDER is a general principle which would result in hierarchy and someone leading the meetings.
THE DOCTRINE OF CELIBACY. -
ABSENT and highly questionable. Great push from north Africa in
this direction, resulting in a reluctant agreement of this per bishops, and Tertullian "father
of Latin Christianity" was north African as was St. Augustine. the north Africans tended to
radical extremes, north Africa spawed Donatism and other heresies. Tertullian himself fell
in with the Montanists, probably due to their extreme asceticism, and denounced the Scythic
and northwards of them women who rode horseback astride as immodest. Tertullian is not a
Church Father because he died in heresy, but nonetheless had remarkable influence.
I Timothy 3:2-13
Last Supper and Paul's remarks about partaking without perceiving the Body of The Lord, I Cor. 11:29. THIS POINTS TO A SENTIENT REALITY IN THE BREAD AND WINE THAT CAN
BE OFFENDED, OR AT THE LEAST TO GOD OVERSEEING THIS AND GETTING OFFENDED AND SOMETIMES TAKING ACTION. AND THAT THE BREAD AND WINE ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, OR CONTAIN THEM, AND MUST BE VIEWED AS SUCH.
"sacrifice of the Mass" is a bad phrasing. "the unbloody sacrifice" is better, because bread and wine not the body and blood of Christ are sacrificed, and God returns these to the priest and laity (which means the people in Greek) as the Body and Blood of Christ. PAUL ALSO SAYS WE HAVE AN ALTAR THAT THOSE WHO SERVE AT THE JEWISH ALTAR CANNOT PARTAKE OF. so the idea of the unbloody sacrifice being done on an ALTAR is Apostolic. sacrifices are made on an altar, an altar implies offerings to God, and the believer also is altar giving sacrifices or offerings of praise and thanksgiving and prayers for others to God. But this latter is NOT the only meaning. "AN ALTAR," in that context in Hebrews, points to a physical ritual altar. Hebrews 13:10
MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION -
ABSENT and baseless, something that will have to be dumped if RC is to rejoin Orthodoxy. Unnecessary, since God needed only to block original sin transfer in the womb, or cleanse only her womb, or render her immaculate just before conception. If Jesus needed His mother to be without original sin in order to have a prelapsarian human nature, then she needed her mother to be immaculately conceived also, gets ridiculous when you think about it. Some early fathers refer to her as "all
immaculate," but this was about her personal life. By God's grace she did not manifest the sin nature, but still had this. There is a crackpot theory out there, that a person's spirit is inherited traducian style from the father only, and original sin runs patrilineally, not passed through the mother. RC officially rejected traducianism in favor of special creation of each soul and spirit, but traducianism is the basis for the claim of Melchizedec being superior to Aaron and the levitical priesthood in Hebrews. Hebrews 7:9 and context, which in this case is the whole chapter and preceding chapter.
EO never did this, but influenced by RC due to jesuits training our priests in the past when we were lacking educational facilities, such notions crept in among us. This "creationism" of the soul is another thing RC should dump. The soul material, for lack of a better word, transmits as does the physical material, half a physical germ cell and with it half of soul material, which being fluid is more malleable and shapable for good or ill than the physical. The idea of special creation of each spirit, seems to draw on Origenism, while making it not happen before conception but at conception. There used to be disputes in the west as to when the child was ensouled or you could argue enspirited.
MARY'S ASSUMTION (BOTH BODY & SOUL) INTO HEAVEN. -
ABSENT, BUT TRUE OR FALSE COULD NOT BE IN SCRIPTURE BECAUSE SHE DIED AFTER SCRIPTURE WAS FINISHED.the belief existed back to the 400s or 500s AD when a church being built in her honor asked church leaders of the city where she died for a relic but there was none, because after her death Jesus Christ came and resurrected her and took her to heaven. AND THIS HAD BEEN KEPT A SECRET AMONG THEM, FROM THAT TIME, BECAUSE SHE HAD ORDERED THOSE PRESENT TO NOT TELL ANYONE OF THIS, LEST IT DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM HER SON TO HER. That makes it credible to me, because this is consistent with the little we know of her from Scripture. AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTESTANT CONCERNS SO PROTESTANT READERS SHOULD TAKE NOTE. The focus her developed later in reaction to gnostics who denied Christ's full humanity and declared His physical body an illusion, because this was to emphasize the reality of Christ's INCARNATION. I think she would dislike some things now.
absent, but the Hebrew royal categorization practice was that the queen was not the wife of the king but the mother of the king.
PRAYERS BEING OFFERED TO MARY AND TO DEAD SAINTS. -
began as prayers to God in the presence of relicsand tombs of martyrs figuring one was closer to God when closer to His martyrs, and came to include requests to them to pray for us. A lot of Marian visions are highly dubious, and any visionaries
who had "locutions" should be ignored as hysterical or worse and that's probably most of them. This sort of thing is back of a lot of later RC doctrinal and practice development. There is not much teaching on the possibility of deception by demons or by the flesh given to the laity while Orthodoxy has this kind of warning published and taught by spiritual fathers to non monastics who visited for
advice and so forth. God being oniscient and Mary and the saints having a close relationship with Him, He can let them know that someone wants their prayers for them.
THE CUP BEING WITHHELD FROM THE LAITY. -
ABSENT AND WRONG ONLY DEVELOPED IN THE WEST NEVER THE EAST.
THE CHARGE OF MONEY FOR THE MASS. -
ABSENT and damn near simony. This would of course be regarding special masses for the dead or some purpose, assuming it is still done now. EO under financial pressure
to support the Ecumenical Patriarch who was under financial pressure from the Turkish ruler developed a system of paying for everything, which remained to this day except among the Greeks who are usually better supported. at least in America. thus you pay in some jurisdictions to get your house blessed, moleben special prayer ceremonies in the church for the dead usually, and baptisms.
THE CONFESSIONAL. -
logical development over years adapting to circumstances. James 5:16
THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY AND THE UNFINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS BY CHRIST. -
purgatory is one of those things RC will have to admit they are wrong about and throw out before they can be admitted back into Orthodoxy, the shared communion is rare, extreme circumstances, almost non existent. "reunion" of the RC with Orthodox can only be on the basis of submission again to the original church. THERE IS NO NOTION OF CHRIST'S WORK BEING UNFINISHED. THE CONCERN IS ABOUT UNCONFESSED OR
NOT TRULY REPENTED OF/TURNED FROM SINS AND SECRET SINS.
PURGATORY IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PHENOMENON OF TOLLHOUSES, itself reworked to have questionable elements in it in a questionable vision or dream, but the fear that demons could like a tollhouse keeper lurk and rush on you and grab you, because of sins burdening you down, and prevent for a while your getting up to heaven, goes back to early prayers. It is a logical concept when one thinks of the issue of sins alienating you from God. If you haven't grossed out the angels they will defend you. Near death experiences have included such monsters grabbing at you or right in hell with a cry to Jesus or in one case a mental certainty that Christ walking by could rescue the person being enough to save the person, the man in white seen either Christ or an angel only looked at him at that thought and he was back in his body. Usually these situations are disrupted by rescusitation
efforts. some were in hell and begged not to be let die, others were in heaven and wanted to stay there. the ones with horrific experiences when asked later often had suppressed them, and only remembered the initial peaceful feeling state during separation from the body.
Protestants are too slipshod. a verse here, a verse there, and a fragmented picture is built.
THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES. -
ABSENT and baseless as a logical development. EO did this a few times thanks to RC influence.
PRAYING THE ROSARY. -
absent, but a logical development of the idea of praying constantly. However the content can be argued with. We pray using a knotted cord, to keep count of prayers.
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. -
Onisephorus 2 Timothy 1:16-18; 4:19 which uses the concept of asking for him to be shown mercy "on that day" i.e., day of judgement, that the maccabees used. Prayers for the dead were part of Jewish practice so would have naturally continued in the early Church. Paul twice refers to Onesiphorus' household without mentioning him as among them, then refers to him and prays that The Lord have mercy on him on that day because he had helped Paul a lot. Onesiphorus is always talked about past tense when at all so he is dead, and combined with that prayer for him shows he was dead. JESUS SAID WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, MATT. 19:26 and the context is the repentance and salvation and eternal life of those who in this life it is harder to get into the Kingdom of God than getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Logically the same could be applied to an equally difficult salvation situation. Jesus said He has the keys of Hades and Death, Rev. 1:18, hades of course is not torment hell, but INCLUDES it being the realm of the dead in general. IPeter 3:18-20; 4:6 someone argued mere announcement kerygma not invitation euangelion was used, but BOTH words are used.
COLLECTING AND VENERATING RELICS. -
Elisha's bones brought a dead man back to life, and do you think recipients of those cloths blessed by having been worn by Peter would have tossed them away? Even his shadow was thought would cure if it fell on someone, and you could call someone's shadow a relic of the person. 2Kings 13:21, Acts 19:12, Acts 15:15 a shadow could be called a relic of someone, however ephemeral;
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. -
ABSENT the only infallibility was held to be the Scriptures, appealed to by
the Creed to support the doctrine of the REsurrection of Christ, and the dogmatic pronouncements of the Ecumenical Councils. NOT NECESSARILY THE CANONS THAT WERE PRESENTED SEPARATE AND AFTER THE DOGMATIC DECLARATIONS, AT LEAST ONCE ONE OF THESE WAS CHANGED BY A LATER COUNCIL.
SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT PETER WAS EVER IN ROME. -
absent but true or false would not be in Scripture this occurred after Acts ends with Paul still alive in Rome. By this logic, the Apostles evaporated at this point. Or, you could argue none of them died because their deaths are not recorded in the
PETER DID NOT FOUND THE ROMAN CONGREGATION. Romans 15:20 is cited by some that Paul didn't found them but Peter must have because Paul says he worked to preach where others hadn't so he wouldn't build on another man's foundation. BUT THE CONTEXT IS, his travels hither and yon, and verse 20 "FOR WHICH CAUSE ALSO I HAVE BEEN MUCH HINDERED FROM COMING TO YOU." So he had not stayed out of Rome because he wanted to avoid building on another man's foundation, but had been too busy not building
on another man's foundation elsewhere to come to Rome, where he intended as follows, Romans 1:11 "FOR I LONG TO SEE YOU, THAT I MAY IMPART UNTO YOU SOME SPIRITUAL GIFT, TO THE END YE MAY BE ESTABLISHED;" SO NO APOSTLE WAS THERE OR HAD BEEN THERE, ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED ALREADY.
Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Roman congregation, they founded themselves! They believed on Jesus because of the words of believers who came to Rome. But they had no bishop or Apostolic Succession as yet, but were Christians because they believed in Jesus Christ as King and God Incarnate and His atoning death and His Resurrection. SOMEONE CLAIMED RC WAS FOUNDED BY SIMON MAGUS, MUST BE ANOTHER HISLOPPIAN. HISLOP IN HIS SLOPPY WAY, FALLING ALL OVER HIMSELF TO PROVE PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME, ESTABLISHED A TWO YEAR WINDOW WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE BUT DISMISSED IT, AND SAID A SIMON PETER WAS IN ROME GUESS WHAT,THAT WAS PETER'S NAME! Simon magus was not the same person. Obviously.
to which can be added, MAINTENANCE OF SALVATION BY GOOD WORKS - what else are you going to make
of the Last Judgement scene? and Paul's statement that you are in Christ and Christ in you unless you
are reprobate? the Greek word is some kind of muddle about something you don't or aren't speaking of
one could read it "unless you are unspeakable?" MATT. 7:21; MATT. 18:23-35; MATT. 22:11-13 the guest
without the wedding garment of righteousness, someone who is an easy believer and feels free to sin
and even ignore Christ or deny Him once they've been "saved" by the sinner's prayer I suppose?
MATT. 24: 45-51; MATT. 25:31-46
POSSIBLE BREAK OF RELATIONSHIP WITH CHRIST AND LOSS OF SALVATION. -
definitely present in warnings surrounding those once saved always saved perseverence verses out of context, in context they are saying you will not lose your salvation if you hang onto it and persevere in it and repent if you fall into sin and keep persevering against sin. REVIEW THE BIBLE VERSES IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION. also I Cor. 13:5; I JOHN 16, 17 ALSO SHOWS DEGREES OF SIN, "ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IS SIN: AND THERE IS A SIN NOT UNTO DEATH." REV. CHAPTERS TWO AND THREE LETTERS TO CHURCHES WARNING OF JUDGEMENT OF VARYING DEGREES, SEE ALSO WARNING
AGAINST TAKING THE MARK OF THE BEAST, AND WARNING AGAINST BEING BLOTTED OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE IF YOU ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
one verse out of context and ignoring origin pointed to. EXODUS 19:6 A nation of priests God called Israel, yet they had priests and non priests, but as a nation were priests before God to the rest of the world. All could offer to God THROUGH the priest, and all could offer praise and prayer.
Paul's instructions clearly make such a distinction, and the priesthood of all believers verse draws on the SAME idea presented in the Torah, yet distinctions and a separate priesthood over this nation of priests existed then. We are not lacking priesthood but rather a new priesthood that of Melchizedec is in play, with Jesus as permanent High Priest. if there is a high priest there are lesser priests. The laity are priests who give the offering of praise, worship, prayer, light candles in church and can burn incense at home, contribution to the church maintenance and support of the poor. Can do baptism if a priest is lacking.
Paul's instructions show the bishop and deacon especially are to be models. episkopos means OVERSEER that is a rank above the overseen, is it not?
"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." Heb. 13:17
shared by pagans and Israel, none of them condemned and some mandated by God?
and then turn around and write another book to debunk his first "work" is beyond me."
than dedication to truth. Woodrow was not dedicated to his heart, but to truth, and
finding he had supported a lie, proceeded to correct the lie instead of clinging
to this false love. However, he retained issues with RC on some points.
different from RC except few vague similarities. Maybe you should
objective archaeological sources. similarity is not identity. Hislop identifies
various false gods and heroes as one and the same despite wild differences, on
the basis of one or two similarities.
but his mother. Hence Mary being queen of heaven.
of Hislop's book. The book itself stands on its own merits."
sources Hislop uses actually say, which are not entirely what he says they say.
Sounds like your attitude is "Hislop said it, I believe it that's that."
when everyone believes it."" This is true, and you should therefore double check
what you believe lest you find you have acquired a few lies. Woodrow checked Hislop's
sources and the Bible and found Hislop was wrong.
What Hislop dug up would also refute the Incarnation and virgin birth and The Trinity,
Hislop wouldn't go this far, so he said the presence of things like this in paganism
were a vague memory of truth known in the past. THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF EVERYTHING HISLOP COMPLAINS ABOUT.
St. Ignatius supports the real presence, c. Ad 35-50 to c. AD 98-110, AND HE WAS
TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLE JOHN HIMSELF.
was not until 831 A.D. that Paschasius Radbertus, a Benedictine Monk, published a
treatise openly advocating the doctrine. Even then, for almost another four centuries,
theological was was waged over this teaching by bishops and people alike, until at
the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D.,"
addressing accusations of cannibalism, between actual human flesh (like what is
carved off a body) and the transformed bread which is flesh also, but not in the
obvious same way, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, from Europe and the Middle East
respectively, say it is Christ's flesh (and blood). c. AD 180 and 150, so the teachings
of the Church on this was the same. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by
the Apostle John.
wine is legitimate APOSTOLIC TEACHING. The accusations of cannibalism by Romans during at least one or more of the persecutions shows the doctrine was universal before Constantine.
the controversy arose because someone who did not doubt Christ's presence in the
Eucharistic wafter or host, but who thought it was somehow different than His historic
flesh feared this notion would imply Christ was re crucified every Mass. In other
words, he did not reject that Christ's flesh (I guess he meant His resurrection flesh
with more miraculous properties than the pre resurrection body, but still that same
body?) was in the bread. It was a question of how much so I guess. stirring this pot
was the scientific focus. https://vatikos.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/first-eucharistic-controversy/
Benedictine abbot Paschasius Radbertus (+ 859), who is honoured as a saint by the
Church. In his writings De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, he taught a complete identity
between the historical body of Christ, born of Mary, and the Eucharistic body of
Christ, because that is the only body that can give salvation and that can be the
Head of the Body of the redeemed which is the Church. However, this real body of
Christ is present in the Eucharist in signs: it is eaten mystically and not in away
that is perceptible to the senses. But the realism is strong in the thinking of
Paschasius. When he explains how the body of the risen Christ could be present
within a host, and even in so many hosts, he postulates a miraculous multiplication
of the flesh of Christ analogous to the multiplication of the loaves as reported in
the Gospels. He seems to say that the bread is replaced by the flesh of Christ;
even though the appearance is that of bread, serving as a figura of the body of
Christ. This is possible for him because of the work of the Holy Spirit, same way
as His work of uniting the divine to human flesh in the incarnation.
though he had no doubt about the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and
wine. But he questioned the simple identification of what was eaten in the Eucharist
with historical body of Christ. He thought that this would suggest that Jesus Christ
actually died each time the Eucharist was celebrated. Those who did not agree with
Paschasius distinguished between the historical body of Christ, the ecclesial body of
Christ and the Eucharistic body of Christ. These three were special and distinct, so
one cannot be talked about the way one talked the other."
literally still there before, during, and after they had partaken of the bread and
the cup! He was not changed into some liquid and bread - His flesh was still on His
bones, and His blood still in His veins. He had not vanished away to reappear in the
form of a piece of bread or a cup of wine!"
His body and blood into the bread and wine, and that He Who could multiply fish and
bread could not multiply some of His body and blood? Never crosses the writer's mind. (Radbertus having this idea is new to me, I had come to this conclusion years ago.) "Do this in remembrance of Me." is about the entire ceremony not that the bread is not still bread and nothing more. context, people context!
the comparison "Jesus did not say TOUTO GIGNETAI ("this has become" or "is turned
into"), but TOUTO ESTI ("this is," i.e., "signifies," "represents" or "stands for")."
come, consist Third person singular present indicative of eimi; he (she or it) is;
also (with neuter plural) they are -- are, be(-long), call, X can(-not), come,
consisteth, X dure for a while, + follow, X have, (that) is (to say), make, meaneth,
X must needs, + profit, + remaineth, + wrestle." note that CONSISTETH option.
"That's why the bread and wine must become physically Jesus' body and blood, so that
they can be once again offered for sin: "The Holy Eucharist is the perpetual
continuation of this act of sacrifice and surrender of our Lord. When the Lord's
Supper is celebrated, Christ again presents Himself in His act of total surrender
to the Father in death." THIS IS AN ERROR.
His Body and Blood that is offered to God on the altar, it is the BREAD AND WINE that
are offered, "thine own of thine own," which God then transforms and gives back to us
as Christ's Body and Blood. Some confusion may exist in RC doctrine even, certainly
among some priests, and the idea has cropped up in an Orthodox priest online, but there
has been RC influence on Orthodoxy off and on especially after the Ottoman empire on
the one hand and poverty on the other had Orthodox priest trainees going to RC seminaries,
or Orthodox seminaries being taught by RC Jesuits.
doesn't matter. The issue is WHICH claimant to deity is involved in this action not
that there is a similarity of action. By this logic, offering prayers to God is pagan
because pagans offered prayers to their false gods!
"it is finished!" "These words do not declare that His sacrifice was finished, but that
He had finished His former, normal, earthly life and was now fixed in the state of a
victim...He then began His everlasting career as the perpetual sacrifice of the new law."
(15) Hence, according to Rome, Jesus must be forever "perpetually"dying for sin.
Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the
cross? Every crucifix with Jesus portrayed as nailed to it, tells the whole Catholic
story - Jesus is still dying for the sins of the world! But that's a lie! We need only
look to the Scriptures to see the truth."
and at least one Orthodox priest made the same error. The sacrifice is perpetual in that it stands forever. it can be plugged into so to speak and is a constant wellspring of new life. It is Jesus' death on the Cross (followed by His Resurrection) that is the key event and Paul says he doesn't want to know any among the Corinthians except Christ and Him crucified. That is the focus. BUT CHRIST IS NOT SACRIFICED IN THE MASS, BREAD AND WINE ARE SACRIFICED "THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE" AND RETURNED TO US AS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
that there can be no suffering or death by God, only an illusion of it, and since the
crucifix is a product of the faithful whose faith originates in the empty tomb, implies
the resurrection because without that no one would be making crucifixes! Christ is not
perpetually dying for sin. This is a kind of two dimensional thinking. The Crucifix
emphasizes Christ's Atoning death, which broke the power of sin and crippled the devil.
thing as a venial sin. ALL SIN IS MORTAL! "
better in the Last Judgement because they WOULD have repented if given the opportunities
that another city had and did not repent. outer darkness, being eaten by worms, and
eternal fire are distinct things He mentioned. Then there is flogging of His servants
without casting them out entirely, more lashes for those who knew better and less for
those who didn't know better. And the servant who calculates he can get away with abusiveness
and drunkenness and beating his fellow servants, because Christ delays His coming back, will
get thrown out with the unbelievers. Paul lists sins for which the believers should
ostracize another believer, and lists sin development in Romans with a definite bad to worse
depiction. THE IDEA ALL SINS ARE EQUAL IS AGAINST THE BIBLE AND AGAINST COMMON SENSE.
the category of unbeliever, are the sort of thing RC cites to support purgatory, which is
a later invention. Early on prayers depict a concern that the dead may become prey of demons
because of their sins, and prayers for the dead were because of this not purgatory but
rather that they be delivered from hell if dragged there.
unbelievers or those in hell, but since one can't know if an RC or EO member is in hell
or purgatory (or trapped at a tollhouse), one should pray anyway, but not for unbelievers.
for her dead brother she believed was in hell. St. Gregory Nazianzen also prayed for a
dead pagan emperor. (or was it St. Gregory of Nyssa? I forget.)
do so in Christ's name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before
Jesus Christ and told them to Christ Himself."
from RC. It is more like witnessing the confession, asking God for your pardon and giving
you instruction at times. However, Christ gave the power of absolving sin to His Apostles,
which is assumed to have been passed on to their successors the bishops they appointed,
though these are not counted themselves as Apostles.
some circumstances at least to a congregation. Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; John 20:22, 23
Binding and loosing is primarily about withholding or granting absolution of sin, since the keys to a place let you into the place or let you let someone else in.
Jesus granted this power to Peter, to the rest of the Apostles, and even under
some circumstances at least to a congregation. Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:18; John 20:22, 23
remission of sins power is the binding and loosing thing. This is apparently nuanced and Jesus nowhere claims to have relinquished the keys, merely handed out copies so to speak. Rev. 3:7
confessing your sins to one another, and in early times confession was not private, neither
was penance, some could be standing outside the church for a number of years asking those
going in to pray for them. That's pretty auricular. Private confession kept secret developed
in Ireland among the monks in a counselling context, and was taken up elsewhere. the matter
doesn't seem to be dealt with in the Seven Ecumenical councils' canons. Church disputes existed over whether murder or adultery could be forgiven enough to get you back in communion.
Church, in these words: "Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God's place. It was God's laws they were breaking, not mine. To
God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness." "
one is confessing to God through the priest or in the presence of the priest.
Being Orthodox I share several points with RC Susanna, so I will be defending a
lot of them. I was once protestant and once believed a lot RayB and others do
though I didn't entirely buy Hislop but bought a lot of it. Reading the Bible
straight through in a few months on three occasions and reading the second
century church fathers and studying the church history (which most protestants
barely touch beyond the Reformation with some falsehoods about Constantine
thrown in which are highly illogical, how would these who resisted persecution
accept such deviation as supposedly came from Constantine), I came to the
conclusion that the Orthodox is the original trunk and the rest split from that.
It was a slow process but I essentially catechized myself (by the grace of God)
into Orthodoxy. I was formally recieved into Orthodoxy April 15, AD 2008 taking
the name of a saint Justina who fought off the spells and demons sent at her.
bringing a dead man back to life. Biblical precedent.
surrounding those once saved always saved perseverence verses out of context, in context they are saying you will not lose your salvation if you hang onto it and persevere in it and repent if you fall into sin and keep persevering against sin.
distinction, and the priesthood of all believers verse draws on the SAME idea presented in the Torah, yet distinctions and a separate priesthood over this nation of priests existed then. We are not lacking priesthood but rather a new priesthood that of Melchizedec is in play, with Jesus as permanent High Priest. if there is a high priest there are lesser priests. The laity are priests who give the offering of praise, worship, prayer, light candles in church and can burn incense at home, contribution
to the church maintenance and support of the poor. Can do baptism if a priest is lacking.
from the Temple and Synagogue service, Hebrews doesn't say we have no priesthood just a different one.
perpetual virginity is indicated by her response to the angel, and by Joseph's early disappearance
from the Gospels, as if he was indeed, as the legend tells, a very old man when he married her in a
nominal marriage. Usually a girl told she will give birth to a great man would say "oh goody, my
future marriage will bear fruit" instead Mary the Theotokos asks how this can happen since she
does not know a man, which would imply she expected this situation to continue forever.
Why doesn't the pope (or other bishops for that matter) do miracles like the Apostles, if they are
the successor(s) of the apostle(s)? it is erroneous (in RC and EO) to view the bishops as successors
of the Apostles in the sense that they are Apostles. Rather, they are successors in overseeing the
churches founded by the Apostles, who funtioned like bishops till they could appoint bishops,
and as population grew the several churches in a city.
but the information would in no way contradict or add to what is in Scripture in a way that would
validate gnostic or amoral or other heretical belief and practice. PROTESTANTS DO NOT PRACTICE SOLA
SCRIPTURA, THEY GO BY WHAT PREFERRED TEACHERS THEMSELVES SHAPED BY THOSE SHAPED BY LUTHER AND CALVIN
AND ZWINGLI SAY THE BIBLE MEANS EVEN WHEN IT SAYS OTHERWISE.
ONLY IF BY TRADITION YOU MEAN WHAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT THEIR FIRST SUCCESSOR BISHOPS APPOINTED BY THEM,
WAS LEGITIMATE CANON. The later council after Nicea merely affirmed this canon, cleared up disputes
about some epistles and Revelation.
light in them." Everything starts with the Torah and its standards for judging prophets, and builds from
there. "the Testimony" is probably the prophets, so to judge anything you have to look at two things:
biblical?
the New Testament some of the sayings and parables of Jesus, the mysteries of his life, his commands,
and some of what had been revealed to the Apostles by the Spirit."
the chief cornerstone. The Tradition of the Church includes the early writings patristics and prior does
it not? Irenaeus c. AD 180 didn't say hearers of the Apostles cobbled their statements together.
Irenaeus said that the Churches founded by Apostles received from them what was legitimate Scripture
and that the Apostles wrote the Gospels. Irenaeus cited almost all the present NT canon as authoritative
throughout his writings. HOW MUCH LATER? A GENERATION OR TWO? this talk plays into the hands of pagans
and atheists and liberals, who consider the Bible to be unreliable precisely because they take this
view of it.
As for oral only traditions, sorry prots they exist, but sorry Susanna, they are a real short list of
PRACTICES NOT DOCTRINES, St. Basil the Great gives the list, prayer facing east, triple immersion baptism,
the sign of the Cross, the eucharistic prayers made by the priest, a few other things. practices which
reflect or teach doctrines, but are not themselves doctrines.
and papal infallibility, these do not date to earliest times. "immaculate" when used in early days was
referring to her overall life not to the issue of original sin.
eating of something was involved, and that sin preceded it, in the form of believing the devil's lies,
and in the form of reaching out and touching and picking the fruit, and in bringing it towards the mouth,
all sins that were less but leading up to the especially forbidden thing, and that partook of sins of
spirit like ambition, believing a lie, pride, yet were still undoable, could be forgiven without expulsion,
shows some degree of sin even in that graced state existed.
sin as (in its inherited form) a warp that predisposes to personal sin, is a little better. Of course as
St. Augustine says, evil is not so much a force in itself as a negation, a lack, but he is overreacting
to his manichaean background. A person sunk in negation of good can certainly be said to be on track with
nothingness, yet is a distinct presence and force of action in the world (think corrupt politician or
street gangster).
adults themselves baptized as infants or at least before the conception of the infants. It is more a
crippling of the sin nature, but the temptations exist that when fallen into sort of rebuild this sin
nature. There is also a washing of the STAIN which is like, something has a mold infection, the stains of
it are removed, the mold traces themselves still there in a reduced condition and it may regrow. Also once
we sin personally we are sort of being accessories after the fact to Adam's sin.
" RayB said...
Time-line of the ever-evolving "traditions" of the Catholic church:
200 AD"
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD IN THE EUCHARIST, WHICH WAS
TAUGHT BY ST. IGNATIUS WHO HAD HIS INFORMATION FROM THE APOSTLE JOHN? whatever witness you think
you are getting in your spirit regarding this, if this is what you are referring to, is not from
The Holy Spirit but just the flesh, programmed with anti real presence doctrine, reacting to seeing
it. Supposedly it can't be true, therefore if it appears in the beginning of the second century
it is a case of early apostasy.
is from The Holy Spirit and not a case of you walking in the imagination of your heart which we are
warned against in Deuteronomy? (If you mean gnostic "new testament aprocrypha" heretical materials, these
were never part of The Church. the closest thing to this would be the Shepherd of Hermas which contains
wrong materials and is altogether too wordy, and though popular with many Christians eventually was put
on the rejected list.)
but fail to quote these sources for "tradition" extensively and in context. They merely state the results.
If they did quotes extensively and in context, the intense reliance of the Fathers on Scripture would be
obvious. Though these were written before chapter and verse, reference is made to "the prophet" or a
particular Gospel or Epistle. the collection at ccel.org makes it easier by showing the book chapter and
verse recited or referred to, in a sidebar.
a basis for it in the Bible? and yes, most of it though not all, you do. (papacy and clerical celibacy
are not among these.) The failure of RC and to some extent EO, is that they present the tradition
to you but do not show the Scriptural basis for it (EO is better on this in one catechism.)
by the pope.
public, after being held as local history in one city's church leadership.
honor, and a delegation was sent to the church of the city where she died (Ephesus maybe) asking a relic.
A relic is usually a body part or bone. It can be an article of clothing. The former was obviously
requested, because her sash and one or two other items are preserved, but as for a personal relic,
none was available. Why? Jesus had come back after she died and resurrected her and in her final
address to her friends before going up alive again into heaven with Him, she told them to TELL NO ONE
ABOUT THIS FOR FEAR IT WOULD DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM HER SON.
of her in the Gospels. Also it should make protestants sit up and take notice, because it goes
against the later hyper development of focus on her. In Orthodoxy it rarely gets that extreme in RC
it is over the top more and more. So after this information was passed to the requestors, it went
viral.
that what came out of her womb was not a special man merely human who became God later, or received
the Christ spirit as some NEw Agers and earlier gnostics might say, or acquired God the Second Person
of The Holy Trinity as some sort of partner, BUT THAT FROM CONCEPTION ON THROUGH BIRTH TO NOW AND
FOREVER JESUS IS BOTH FULLY MAN AND FULLY GOD. That what came out of her womb was the God man (God
become man, not a man god or a man become god.)
monophysites or miaphysites which is monophysite lite, and view the natures as joined at the level
of nature instead of at the level of person) and argued for a kind of almost double person in Christ.
And AS PART OF THIS HE OBJECTED TO THE TERM THEOTOKOS, PREFERRING CHRISTOTOKOS.
and that He was divine from conception on, King and God at His birth, not human only at birth and
divine later.
the problem he encountered anyone could have encountered if from another language at any time.
Indeed, a visitor from say China or India or even Greek speaking to a Latin only and Latin
derived common tongue would be at the same loss as he was in an Orthodox church.
etc. fawned on Rome and talked about Peter, NOT ONE WORD OF THIS IS IN THE HOLY CANONS OF THE
ECUMENICAL COUNCILS BEFORE THE GREAT SCHISM. NOT ONE WORD. All that is said is that THE FATHERS
not Jesus not Peter THE FATHERS gave preeminence to Rome because it was the first city of the
empire so should be the first city of the church, and likewise Constantinople not Alexandria
should be the second city of the church because it was the second city of the empire. period.
chalcedon canon 28, Rome wouldn't sign off on that canon because they supported Alexandria's
protest at being demoted, but it passed anyway because Rome was outvoted, what does that tell
you? the East always counted it as legitimate. In the next council Rome had caved in because
Constantinople was reiterated as second city of the Church, without comment or argument.
just not pan orthodox or ecumenical. Blachernae-constantinople for one, Jerusalem that
answered the Calvinist heresies on the other in 16 something.
by the gold of the temple as valid, but which is greater, He said? the gold or the Temple that makes
the gold holy? the second game was that someone would tell his father he would not support him
because all he had to spare was corban, dedicated to the Temple, therefore he could not give it to
him, and this was allowed though it was a way of avoiding honoring his father (which shows that
physical support of life not necessarily obedience is what honoring was about).
religious based not medically based circumcision, or forbidden of eating pork and other mosaically
unclean foods ever, as distinct from fasting on certain days or during lent which means less
food and vegetarian only, or keeping Mosaic holy days? exactly such traditions of men have
become acceptable among some evangelicals, yet this judaizing Paul warned endangered your
standing with Christ.
instance, there is prohibition on tattooing in Orthodoxy and many evangelicals recognize this also,
I don't know what RC says now, because one was not to make markings on the body, stated separately
from cutting the flesh for the dead (feed vampires?) and the Hebrew wording indicates the ink
would be going into the skin, not painted on. The issue is seen as defiling the body God designed
by additions to it of either a pagan or a frivolous nature.
things denounced by anti RC people DO FOLLOW THINGS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT when you read it all
and in context.
stated intent in a context where the original way of doing it would not do this? And is the
stated goal something still binding as moral law or not?
stealing, so is valid.
owning family after that except in a city, would not be valid, nor would anything designed to
keep tribes identity and property separate, or to keep them going, because all that was part
of using existing customs to faciliate later the identification of the Messiah. He being come
already none of that matters.
would be a GOOD IDEA. there is no indication this was continued in the early church or the canons
of the bishops trained by bishops trained by bishops in the early church. So it is not mandatory,
but the concept behind it that debt not be a means of slavery, should be looked into and
preserved or restored. (interest on loans to facilitate vanities like a yacht might be okay,
but a fishing boat to start a business, no, but to expand a business maybe. )
another human, and has let someone know something you wanted kept secret and is embarassing.
pride being the big danger sin, along with lust, and humility the great virtue along with faith
and charity, it is obvious that this tradition, an outgrowth of confess your sins to one
another, and an action against pride and for humility, is valid. especially when you note the
binding and loosing which relates primarily to forgiveness of sins, which Jesus gave the Apostles
and which was likely passed on to their successor understudies the bishops who would delegate
to the priests.
ADDED : the epistle to the Romans is proof that protestants, those who truly love and try to obey Jesus even though a bit confused, ditto RC members likewise, are not entirely outside the category of Church defined as those attached to Christ. note Luke 9:49,50 and implications of this paragraph from the above post:
Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Roman congregation, they founded themselves! They believed on Jesus because of the words of believers who came to Rome. But they had no bishop or Apostolic Succession as yet, but were Christians because they believed in Jesus Christ as King and God Incarnate and His atoning death and His Resurrection. SOMEONE CLAIMED RC WAS FOUNDED BY SIMON MAGUS, MUST BE ANOTHER HISLOPPIAN. HISLOP IN HIS SLOPPY WAY, FALLING ALL OVER HIMSELF TO PROVE PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME, ESTABLISHED A TWO YEAR WINDOW WHEN HE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE BUT DISMISSED IT, AND SAID A SIMON PETER WAS IN ROME GUESS WHAT,THAT WAS PETER'S NAME! Simon magus was not the same person. Obviously.
