Converting to the RCC

Post Reply
User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Wed May 27, 2009 2:04 pm

darinhouston wrote:
thomas wrote: By the way both the Catholics an Orthodox recognize each other as the original church and each others Apostolic Succesion. They are two branches of the same church. The agument is primarily over whether the Pope is an equal of the other 4 Patriarchs (Orthodox) or an athority over them (Catholic).
I thought the schism was largely credal and that the RCC Pope and Orthodox Patriarch anathematized each other and their positions over the procession of the Holy Spirit.


You are right. It's part of the same arguement.

The Filouqe , proceeded from the Son , in the nicene creed. It is not so much that the change itself was wrong but The Patriarchs said it could not be changed without their consent in a council and the Pope said he could do it on his own. They ended up excommunicating each other , which is no longer in effect , but I don't know when they dropped it.
Last edited by thomas on Wed May 27, 2009 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Wed May 27, 2009 2:12 pm

Paidion wrote:My understanding, Darin, is that the issue of whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or the Father alone, was just the proverbial "straw". The issues were much greater than that, but that was used as the excuse for the division into two streams.

I think Thomas is correct in their seeing each other as succeeding from the same original universal Church.

What I'm wondering, Thomas, is whether they see the Episcopalian Church as a later stream. The Episcopalian Church seems to regard itself as such.

I can understand why they wouldn't regard the Protestant groups as such. My wife's Catholic history teacher did not speak of "The Protestant Reformation". He called it "The Protestant Revolution".



No the RCC does not consider the Episcopalians as having a valid Apostolate. I'm not certain of the reason.

The Protestant Revolution sounds about right. At least the Protestants are no longer heretics , but ¨seperated bretheran¨ who may recieve salvation.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Wed May 27, 2009 2:51 pm

thomas wrote:The Protestant Revolution sounds about right. At least the Protestants are no longer heretics , but ¨seperated bretheran¨ who may recieve salvation.
Interesting -- did the doctrine of the Protestants change? Or did the doctrine of the RCC change? How could a doctrine "become" non-heretical?

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Wed May 27, 2009 3:24 pm

darinhouston wrote:
thomas wrote:The Protestant Revolution sounds about right. At least the Protestants are no longer heretics , but ¨seperated bretheran¨ who may recieve salvation.
Interesting -- did the doctrine of the Protestants change? Or did the doctrine of the RCC change? How could a doctrine "become" non-heretical?

A heretic can only be a person within the church , who advocates disobedience to dogma. Luther was from within the church , therefore he is a heretic as are any Catholics who leave the church. However persons brought up as protestants were never in the RCC and are not subject to the church and cannot by definition be heretics.

They are saved by having a valid baptism , by their belief in Christ , and by doing the best they know how. In other words , by doing what they are doing.

The doctrine might be heretical but the people following it are not.

Nothing has changed except that after 400 years they were ready to recognize reality. They are not dumb just slow.
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Wed May 27, 2009 5:15 pm

thomas wrote:
darinhouston wrote:
When Paul ran into a dispute in Acts 15 he took it to the council in Jerusalem , the authoratative body of it's time , in order to get a decision.
Do you believe Paul went to get a decision? or to resolve the conflict? One implies he was seeking answers -- the other implies he was seeking resolution to and agreement on the answer he was already quite clear about from his letter to the Galatians (and everything else he ever wrote, it seems).
I am sure he was not seeking a personal decision. He was seeking a judicial decision from a body who had the the authority to resolve the conflict. And it was the councils authority that was needed to resolve the conflict.
I went and re-read Galatians 2. It's pretty clear to me from Chapter 2 that he went there not to gain ANY sort of "authority" from the body. In fact, he clearly states that he didn't really even care who they were (himself), and in particular noted even that God shows no favoritism to them and that even the "influential leaders" added nothing to his message. He seems more interested in the fact that they gave him "the right hand of fellowship" after his visit than the fact that they made a firm decision. It seems to me (at least from the Galatians passage) that he was only interested in maintaining unity and fellowship and wanted to make sure there wouldn't be any of his fellow apostles who would be teaching something else. If anything, maybe he was there to make sure he could maintain fellowship with them or if he should consider them to have had a corrupted influence. I wonder what he would have done had they not agreed with him -- he seemed so intent and disregarding of the opinion of others that I would doubt he would have submitted to any other decision. Fortunately, they agreed with him.

Interestingly, in the very next passage Paul points out that he opposed Cephas "to his face." This doesn't sound like any sort of papal authority among the apostles to me.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by steve » Wed May 27, 2009 6:28 pm

Homer wrote:
But there were additional elders appointed by Titus:

Titus 1:5 (New King James Version)
5. For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—

So here we have, if not a succession of elders, a succession of elder appointer! To me, this is strong support for the idea that elders are to be the norm in the church. In Acts 6 the first deacons were appointed after being selected by the church. The very same word, kathistemi, was used by Luke that Paul used in commanding Titus to appoint elders, and was also used by Jesus in regard to making rulers.
I don’t see here the succession that you are seeing. Titus was not a second-generation elder-appointer. He was an apostolic legate, acting under direct orders of a living apostle. As an emissary of Paul to Crete, he was an extension of Paul himself. He did not succeed Paul. They worked simultaneously. The same was true of Timothy. These younger men were themselves “apostolic” by virtue of their being part of Paul’s team. They acted on Paul’s behalf.

W.E. Vine said of the word kathistemi, “Not a formal ecclesiastical ordination is in view, but the ‘appointment,’ for the recognition of the churches, of those who had already been raised up and qualified by the Holy Spirit…” Sound pretty close to what Paidion and I said earlier, although this comment may simply reflect Vine’s Plymouth Brethren biases.

Homer wrote:
I should say something about "ordained". I was much impressed by the book "The Social Gospel" by James Haldane, the Scotch reformer, pub. 1805, where he argued against an ordained person being stamped with an indelible mark, and being permanently of another class of persons. Ordained simply means being appointed to an office, and when you leave the position you were appointed to you are no longer ordained.
That’s the way I would see it also. I was “ordained” at Calvary Chapel, Santa Cruz, in 1981. This was obviously for ministry at Calvary Chapel. When I moved to Oregon, in 1983, I was never part of a Calvary again. They never “revoked” my ordination, but I consider myself “unordained” in that movement.


Paidion wrote:
I don't want to nitpick by detracting from the main theme, but I was wondering why you think there was only one congregation. My understanding is that there were several "home churches" in the city (all part of the One Church, of course), and that Paul's letter "to the Corinthians" was meant for all of those house churches as a whole.
I would agree with this, if we were talking about the church in Rome, which apparently consisted of multiple “households” or “house churches” in various parts of the city (so, Romans 16). Corinth, however, apparently had a meeting place—the house of Gaius—which was large enough to accommodate “the whole church” in “one place” (Rom.16:23/ 1 Cor.14:23).

Thomas wrote:
Don't hold back , tell me what you really think.
Sorry if I seemed vehement. However, it is hard to read the history of the church, its adulterous popes, its inhuman inquisitions, its broken oaths (e.g., to Jan Hus), its pompous and blasphemous claims, its exploitation of the poor (e.g., selling indulgences), and all of its other atrocities, and to speak as if this group should be regarded as in any sense representing Christ on earth. Paul said, if anyone preached any other gospel, they should be anathematized, and he wished for the “cutting off” of those who corrupted the faith. I think my words, by comparison are relatively tame.

I have never been against Roman Catholics. I am against the Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which has for so long been used as an excuse to trap gullible people (I am not including you among the gullible) in bondage to what seems so obviously a false church.

It is not enough to say, “None of us is perfect, so the clergy can’t be expected to be.” What I am talking about is an organization in which the main leadership exhibited no evidence of even being regenerated at all. I cannot believe that the Jesus whom the apostles followed, and whom I follow, had anything to do with the establishment of such a farce.

I can't help wondering how many millions of souls, which might otherwise have come to know God, now lie in their graves lost, principally because the false shepherds were so intent on “feeding themselves” rather than “feeding the flock” (Ezek.34)?

I guess that’s what I really think. ☺

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by Paidion » Wed May 27, 2009 7:05 pm

Steve, you wrote:I would agree with this, if we were talking about the church in Rome, which apparently consisted of multiple “households” or “house churches” in various parts of the city (so, Romans 16). Corinth, however, apparently had a meeting place—the house of Gaius—which was large enough to accommodate “the whole church” in “one place” (Rom.16:23/ 1 Cor.14:23).
If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? I Cor 14:23

There seems to be three possibilities here, concerning "the whole church" assembling.

1. All disciples in Corinth always met in one place (as you suggest).
2. Sometimes all disciples in Corinth from all the house churches, met in one place for special gatherings.
3. By "whole assembly", Paul referred to the whole assembly in any one of the house gatherings in Corinth.

I think either #2 or #3 applies, but I am not sure which.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by Homer » Wed May 27, 2009 11:14 pm

Hi Steve,

Hope you got some rest and are not up to read this!

I wrote:
But there were additional elders appointed by Titus:

Titus 1:5 (New King James Version)
5. For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—

So here we have, if not a succession of elders, a succession of elder appointer! To me, this is strong support for the idea that elders are to be the norm in the church. In Acts 6 the first deacons were appointed after being selected by the church. The very same word, kathistemi, was used by Luke that Paul used in commanding Titus to appoint elders, and was also used by Jesus in regard to making rulers.

And you replied:

I don’t see here the succession that you are seeing. Titus was not a second-generation elder-appointer. He was an apostolic legate, acting under direct orders of a living apostle. As an emissary of Paul to Crete, he was an extension of Paul himself. He did not succeed Paul. They worked simultaneously. The same was true of Timothy. These younger men were themselves “apostolic” by virtue of their being part of Paul’s team. They acted on Paul’s behalf.
I see I was a bit careless here. I did not mean that I believe there was and is a succession of appointers of the class of Paul and Titus, simply that I find indication that elders continued to be appointed other than by the Apostles.

During the time of the Apostles the Holy Spirit had been given, there were apostles, and as you note, their legates, and apparently elders appointed everywhere there were qualified people. It makes no sense to me that the church needs none of them today other than the Holy Spirit. There would seem more need today than ever.

User avatar
thomas
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Panama

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by thomas » Thu May 28, 2009 5:21 am

Hola Steve:
Sorry if I seemed vehement. However, it is hard to read the history of the church, its adulterous popes, its inhuman inquisitions, its broken oaths (e.g., to Jan Hus), its pompous and blasphemous claims, its exploitation of the poor (e.g., selling indulgences), and all of its other atrocities, and to speak as if this group should be regarded as in any sense representing Christ on earth. Paul said, if anyone preached any other gospel, they should be anathematized, and he wished for the “cutting off” of those who corrupted the faith. I think my words, by comparison are relatively tame.

I have never been against Roman Catholics. I am against the Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which has for so long been used as an excuse to trap gullible people (I am not including you among the gullible) in bondage to what seems so obviously a false church.

It is not enough to say, “None of us is perfect, so the clergy can’t be expected to be.” What I am talking about is an organization in which the main leadership exhibited no evidence of even being regenerated at all. I cannot believe that the Jesus whom the apostles followed, and whom I follow, had anything to do with the establishment of such a farce.

I can't help wondering how many millions of souls, which might otherwise have come to know God, now lie in their graves lost, principally because the false shepherds were so intent on “feeding themselves” rather than “feeding the flock” (Ezek.34)?

I guess that’s what I really think. ☺
I'm not offended in the least , I prefer it when someone is up front.

I am not about to make any excuses about what happened centuries ago. My own ancestors were Bavarian Lutherans , most of whom were forced to flee , from the Catholics , to Wurtemburg during the 30 years war. Were the RCC the same now as they were then I would have nothing to do with them.

I do however make allowances for the fact that they have reformed themselves of their former abuses.

Thomas
Dios te bendiga y te guarde

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Converting to the RCC

Post by darinhouston » Thu May 28, 2009 7:12 am

But, certainly it must at least cause you to think twice about whether God would have appointed these men to succeed His apostles and to establish and sustain His one true church and to establish and determine doctrine until now.

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”