Catholic Heresy (for the record)
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
There was a heiarchy in the Early Church, that's undesputed. Read the Didache and "the role of bishops" by St. Ignatius of Antioch.
If you don't believe in oral tradition your nuts brother. The Gospel of Christ put into hours in a day roughly equates to only 17 days. He was ministering for three years! And we know that "if everything were written down the whole world couldn't contain all of it (a John 21:25).
You misunderstood me, I wasn't stating any doctrine. I was paraphrasing 2 Thess. Dang your defensive.
Jesus himself said, "...and when you fast (Matt 6:16)". Does an Orthodox Christian know scripture better than a Sola? : ) just kidding ok buddy?
Christians were all able to follow their own customs....ok, well most were Jewish and they just translated those customs to practice their Christianity which was extremely liturgical guy!
As much as you say the Orthodox Church (or RCC for that matter) doesn't have proof for oral tradition or Apostolic succession, you have virtually no evidence to the contrary. We at least have documents to prove otherwise dating back to 50AD.
Furthermore, I read you didn't approve of Constantine the Great. Do you realize he commissioned the first distribution of Sacred Scripture in history 331AD. Must be a hate love relationship eh?
If you don't believe in oral tradition your nuts brother. The Gospel of Christ put into hours in a day roughly equates to only 17 days. He was ministering for three years! And we know that "if everything were written down the whole world couldn't contain all of it (a John 21:25).
You misunderstood me, I wasn't stating any doctrine. I was paraphrasing 2 Thess. Dang your defensive.
Jesus himself said, "...and when you fast (Matt 6:16)". Does an Orthodox Christian know scripture better than a Sola? : ) just kidding ok buddy?
Christians were all able to follow their own customs....ok, well most were Jewish and they just translated those customs to practice their Christianity which was extremely liturgical guy!
As much as you say the Orthodox Church (or RCC for that matter) doesn't have proof for oral tradition or Apostolic succession, you have virtually no evidence to the contrary. We at least have documents to prove otherwise dating back to 50AD.
Furthermore, I read you didn't approve of Constantine the Great. Do you realize he commissioned the first distribution of Sacred Scripture in history 331AD. Must be a hate love relationship eh?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I did not say that and dont know who Big Daddy is. Yes, i follow the Catechism of the church. I have studied it for myself and i believe it. I dont pretend to be an expert as you assert that you are. Pride is a sin and i have witnessed to much here to know I have the truth. If i didnt, i would drink the koolaid with yall
There was no hierarchy. Each group of bishops were responsible for their own church. As Ignatius said, the Roman church 'presided in the region of the Romans' (not their bishop. They had no sole bishop). If they had remained doing that instead of trying to boss the church about and take it over there would have been no problem.
It is not a question of whether there is oral tradition. All churches and religions have oral tradition. The Muslims have oral tradition. The question is whether that oral tradition is reliable. And the further from the source it gets the less reliable it is.
Ignatius for example comes 80 years after the death of Christ. On the whole that is two generations which have lived and died. Time enough for oral tradition to have become distorted. And Ignatius mainly gave his own opinions not Scriptural truth and was rendered less reliable by the high excitement he was in as he approached his martyrdom. We have to take this into account when considering his words.
Is it not all the more remarkable then that it proves so sufficient for its purpose without having to be embellished? Remember Matthew, Mark and Luke also added to John. Between them they give a very satisfactory picture. The earliest church clearly did not consider there to be insufficient for they excluded all other writings from being read in churches. They held only to the four Gospels.
In fact of course it was only after Christ's death and resurrection that the Gospel could be made clear. That is why we have the epistles. No one suggested putting Ignatius letters in as Scripture. It was only Apostolic writings which were accepted.
No just explaining for those who read our words.
But He nowhere enjoined fasting as a religious exercise. He was simply guiding those who chose to fast. I fast. But I do not do it to earn merit or think it puts me in favour with God. It aids in concentrating the mind on God, prayer and the Scriptures.
I have never said a word against liturgy. If you wish to worship liturgically that is up to you. Each of us is free to worship in the way we find most helpful. What is wrong is if we somehow suggest that our own liturgy is 'God inspired'.
It is not a question of whether there is oral tradition. All churches and religions have oral tradition. The Muslims have oral tradition. The question is whether that oral tradition is reliable. And the further from the source it gets the less reliable it is.
Ignatius for example comes 80 years after the death of Christ. On the whole that is two generations which have lived and died. Time enough for oral tradition to have become distorted. And Ignatius mainly gave his own opinions not Scriptural truth and was rendered less reliable by the high excitement he was in as he approached his martyrdom. We have to take this into account when considering his words.
Is it not all the more remarkable then that it proves so sufficient for its purpose without having to be embellished? Remember Matthew, Mark and Luke also added to John. Between them they give a very satisfactory picture. The earliest church clearly did not consider there to be insufficient for they excluded all other writings from being read in churches. They held only to the four Gospels.
In fact of course it was only after Christ's death and resurrection that the Gospel could be made clear. That is why we have the epistles. No one suggested putting Ignatius letters in as Scripture. It was only Apostolic writings which were accepted.
No just explaining for those who read our words.
But He nowhere enjoined fasting as a religious exercise. He was simply guiding those who chose to fast. I fast. But I do not do it to earn merit or think it puts me in favour with God. It aids in concentrating the mind on God, prayer and the Scriptures.
I have never said a word against liturgy. If you wish to worship liturgically that is up to you. Each of us is free to worship in the way we find most helpful. What is wrong is if we somehow suggest that our own liturgy is 'God inspired'.
LOL now I've hear it all. Forgeries my dear boy. Forgeries. The only genuine letter we have before 100 AD, apart from Scripture, is Clement's letter in c 95 AD. There is no proof for oral tradition. No one ever wrote down, 'this is oral tradition received from the Apostles' within a period in which it could be acceptable. Indeed the early church made clear that so called oral traditions incorporated in writings were unacceptable and heretical. That is why they limited authoritative books to be read in churches to the Apostolic writings.
Apostolic succession was a device by which certain teachers tried to combat heresy by pointing to those teachers who were in churches which had been founded by the Apostles. (there is absolutely no hint of preference for Rome). But it was not a doctrine, it was practical evidence. It had no divine backing. It was a theory of men useful in the first hundred years after the Apostles when men lived who had known the Apostles. Some came from those very churches who were heretics. Take Alexandria for instance. Both Clement and Origen were heretics as both espoused Gnostic views. Were they in the Apostolic succession? LOL
I'm not the only one who disapproved of him for interfering with church affairs. Both the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch rejected his request at Nicea to give Rome precedence. He may have distributed Scripture (possibly he believed in sola scriptura?) but he also introduced paganism into the Roman church from which it never recovered. And he also introduced the idea of using violence to force people to conform, a lesson the Roman church learned exceedingly well.
Apostolic succession was a device by which certain teachers tried to combat heresy by pointing to those teachers who were in churches which had been founded by the Apostles. (there is absolutely no hint of preference for Rome). But it was not a doctrine, it was practical evidence. It had no divine backing. It was a theory of men useful in the first hundred years after the Apostles when men lived who had known the Apostles. Some came from those very churches who were heretics. Take Alexandria for instance. Both Clement and Origen were heretics as both espoused Gnostic views. Were they in the Apostolic succession? LOL
I'm not the only one who disapproved of him for interfering with church affairs. Both the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch rejected his request at Nicea to give Rome precedence. He may have distributed Scripture (possibly he believed in sola scriptura?) but he also introduced paganism into the Roman church from which it never recovered. And he also introduced the idea of using violence to force people to conform, a lesson the Roman church learned exceedingly well.
G
Oh mw, is that your response, your answer to Jesus' words "Call no man father"? Is that it? Amazing.
Your interpretation of Paul's words to Timothy would have Paul contradicting the Lord. And you are comfortable with that?
This is absolutely pathetic. Absurd.
No wonder there's no progress toward clarity and reason in this thread. Just throw stuff out there without thinking about it.
Here's a question: Why do you believe the Bible is inspired by God?
Your interpretation of Paul's words to Timothy would have Paul contradicting the Lord. And you are comfortable with that?
This is absolutely pathetic. Absurd.
No wonder there's no progress toward clarity and reason in this thread. Just throw stuff out there without thinking about it.
Here's a question: Why do you believe the Bible is inspired by God?
How pathetic. He nowhere suggested that they call him 'father'. If he had done so he would have been in error. All he was doing (as every sensible person knows) was reminding them that they owed their new birth to him as the one who introduced to them the Gospel. HE DID NOT WANT THEM TO CALL HIM 'FATHER'
G
Valiant, I am going to watch closely for the response from Savas to your reply below. .
Savas, if you're still there, Valiant has replied to what you wrote, "you have virtually no evidence to the contrary."
What do you expect as evidence in the negative?
Do you know that you must put forth the evidence that you use as a basis for your belief that RCC is of God? The one who affirms puts forth reasons.
Suppose someone asks me, "Galahad, you believe in the Bible. You say it is inspired by God. Pray tell, on what do you base that?"
According to Savas' way of reasoning, I would be correct to reply with, "Well, what evidence do you have that the Bible is not inspired, is not the word of God?" Unbelievable. Absurd. Ridiculous.
If you're reading this Savas, don't misinterpret my frustration. Don't take personally. Just understand or try to see the issue. It comes down to answering two questions: "Why do you believe the Bible is the word of God? Why do you believe RCC doctrine and practices not found in the Bible? That's it.
AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESPONSE. I HOPE IT IS ADDRESSED,
Hope Savas replies.
Same. Will look for a response.
Savas, if you're still there, Valiant has replied to what you wrote, "you have virtually no evidence to the contrary."
What do you expect as evidence in the negative?
Do you know that you must put forth the evidence that you use as a basis for your belief that RCC is of God? The one who affirms puts forth reasons.
Suppose someone asks me, "Galahad, you believe in the Bible. You say it is inspired by God. Pray tell, on what do you base that?"
According to Savas' way of reasoning, I would be correct to reply with, "Well, what evidence do you have that the Bible is not inspired, is not the word of God?" Unbelievable. Absurd. Ridiculous.
If you're reading this Savas, don't misinterpret my frustration. Don't take personally. Just understand or try to see the issue. It comes down to answering two questions: "Why do you believe the Bible is the word of God? Why do you believe RCC doctrine and practices not found in the Bible? That's it.
AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESPONSE. I HOPE IT IS ADDRESSED,
Hope Savas replies.
Same. Will look for a response.
Last edited: