- Topic
In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself. if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."
I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread. Here's the first one:
Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church. These are historical, textbook facts.
I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html
fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful. I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.
Do you know that even within the Catholic Church that they are divided by denomination. Are we speaking of Roman Catholic here?
Within the Catholic Church there are multiple Churches, Roman, Maronite, Melkite, Coptic, etc. There are actually 21 different Catholic Churches. They have different traditions, and sometimes a different theological focus or style, but they are united in faith and adhere to the Pope. As local, historic, or nationally distinct Churches they all make up the ONE universal Church.
So, your key word is ” the pope. ” why confess to a man who is subject to sin? As in confession.
Because Jesus set it up that way.
“When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” John 20:22-23
I know it is counter-intuitive but those of us who practice it find great peace and consolation in it. It forces us to be honest with ourselves, to humble ourselves, and it takes away all fear and anxiety to actually hear the words absolving us of sin.
You cannot hold your church not agreeing as uniquely ok thats the very definition of special pleading
We Catholics do not for a moment believe that the priest from whom we receive absolution after confession is sinless. We only believe in the effectiveness of absolution because of the promise of Jesus. No priest is sinless. The Pope himself has a confessor.
Simon, Protestant churches have no means of giving an answer that is binding on their members, because nobody holds a God given authority. Therefore everyone’s opinion can be equal and there is no way to have certainty. While the Church may not always exercise her authority to force unity of opinion, she can and she does. There is an old saying, “Roma locuta est, causa finitita est.” “Rome has spoken, the case is finished.” That is a legitimate distinction, not special pleading. There is no final teaching authority in the Protestant churches.
that IS special pleading
I said the Church is the people you say it isn't what if the people don't agree, I said the Catholic leadership doesn't always agree, and you say it doesn't matter
Simon,
Irenaeus is not guilty of special pleading. He is only stating that while disagreements DO exist within the Catholic Church there is an untimate court of appeals that exists within the magisterium consisting of the bishops in union with the Pope. If one Catholic bishop disagrees with another bishop, or a groups of bishops disagree with another group of bishops, they can appeal to the Pope for doctrinal clarity and an authoritative decision. This IS NOT the case within Protestantism. There is no binding authority within the church.
One good example from church history is the disagreement between the bishops in northern Africa over whether heretics need to be rebaptized as Catholics. Some said they did, others said they did not. Pope Stephen wrote a letter and settled the matter by virtue of his authority as the successor of St. Peter.
In short, the Catholic paradigm of authority works; Protestantism doesn't. The tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and sects across the globe are ample evidence of this.
Btw, by Irenaeus I mean IrenauesFTW
Simon wrote:
emil wrote:
Depends on who wrote the book. If you think there are errors in what Irenaeus has written, it would be better to point the errors out rather than make a sweeping statement.
Read how hate filled it is to non rcc
I can't find anything in that post which can even remotely be described as hate-filled. You will have to point to specific sentences which you consider hate-filled. He is merely stating history.
Simon, I will give you a prominent example. St. Jerome, who was the one to translate the bible into Latin, personally opposed the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in the bible. Having voiced his opposition, he submitted himself to the authority of the bishops and went ahead with the translation. That is the difference between individual authority and the magisterium.
To elaborate a bit on this, Jerome's main objection was the fact that at that time, these books did not have the original hebrew manuscripts, though present in the septuagint. However, the Church's collective stand was later vidicated when the hebrew manuscripts of some of the deuterocanonical books were discovered much later.
One more thing, the church is the people as well as the governing structure, which consists of the hierarchy and the various ecclesial lay movements.
it is special peading covered up by begging the question
but lets say it wasn’t there isn’t always a pope so the issue with protestants remains in the roman church still
As far as church the word in no way implies any structure or hierarchy
Simon wrote:
As far as church the word in no way implies any structure or hierarchy
What would you suggest in place of the hierarchy? Without some kind of governance, there would be anarchy.
You have ignored my request to point out what IrenaeusFTW said that was hate-filled in his first post.
any hierarchy can change at gods pleasure
Didn’t ignore your request irenaeus made his point more clear so we made peace there
"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." Hebrews 13:17
The New Testament clearly has a heirarchy of Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. So did the early Church. So does the Catholic Church.
Not sure it proves the hierarchy is set and cannot be redone and is infallible etc
in fact the Catholic Church fails the Biblical definition for the hierarchy of the early church
1 Timothy 3:
2 That is why the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher;
12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife and must be people who manage their children and households well.
13 Those of them who carry out their duties well as deacons will earn a high standing for themselves and an authoritative voice in matters concerning faith in Christ Jesus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.