Apocrypha and Scripture

[Solo]

It is only the office of the Bishops in union with the Pope who can tell US the correct definition of an article of our faith, since they are given the power to bind and loosen, guided by the Spirit. In these definitions, however, they most certainly do call out to the "mind" of the Church, searching for the Spirit's revelation through the "sense of the faithful". Definitions are not spoken from on high without the faithful, because it is OUR faith, the CHURCH'S faith in Christ. We believe the Spirit comes to US as a Body, but to the Bishops and Pope when making definitions authoritatively in a special manner.

The Roman Catholic false belief in Peter being the first pope in charge of the "Church" is definitely a lie. Man is not able to perform the functions that are God's alone. The Holy Spirit is in charge of revealing the Truth of God's Word to each believer.

The Roman Catholic Cult's first pope, Peter, was told by Jesus, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

• But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:23

If Peter was giving Jesus satanic advice, how much more the popes, bishops, and priests of the Roman Cult?!

God's Word is not dependant on any man's interpretation, including the pope or bishop or priests. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit within each born again believer reveals the truth of God's Word to each one apart from a man-made religious cult.

• 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16

The Roman Catholic Cult "visible head" and his magisterium teach the RULE that they have over the members of "The Church" (as is typical of ALL CULTS); But JESUS CHRIST, the TRUE HEAD of the REAL CHURCH, and the HOLY SPIRIT teach that they are SERVANTS of the members of the REAL CHURCH.

 

[biblecatholic]

The Roman Catholic false belief in Peter being the first pope in charge of the "Church" is definitely a lie. Man is not able to perform the functions that are God's alone. The Holy Spirit is in charge of revealing the Truth of God's Word to each believer.

The Roman Catholic Cult's first pope, Peter, was told by Jesus, "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

• But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:23

If Peter was giving Jesus satanic advice, how much more the popes, bishops, and priests of the Roman Cult?!

God's Word is not dependant on any man's interpretation, including the pope or bishop or priests. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit within each born again believer reveals the truth of God's Word to each one apart from a man-made religious cult.

• 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:9-16

The Roman Catholic Cult "visible head" and his magisterium teach the RULE that they have over the members of "The Church" (as is typical of ALL CULTS); But JESUS CHRIST, the TRUE HEAD of the REAL CHURCH, and the HOLY SPIRIT teach that they are SERVANTS of the members of the REAL CHURCH.

i wish those of the mindset of these beliefs had the intent to be intellectually honest

 

[cyberjosh]

i wish those of the mindset of these beliefs had the intent to be intellectually honest

That's not much of a rebuttal. Not to mention that's very vague.

I still await francis to answer my long(er) post above, but if you wish to dig into it also with more specific arguements and answers then please be my guest.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[biblecatholic]

That's not much of a rebuttal. Not to mention that's very vague.

I still await francis to answer my long(er) post above, but if you wish to dig into it also with more specific arguements and answers then please be my guest.

God Bless,

~Josh

josh, ill get to this tomorrow for ya. my answer was short and for the person who commented above me not you...
peace and blessings

 

[francisdesales]

This is probably the one place where we would differ. I believe that only the Spirit can hold that office. Now the Spirit can speak through any man, even your local Pastor as to the proper interpretation of Scripture if God has revealed something to him. Of course now whether it comes from the Pope or your local Pastor we should always still be like the Bereans and double check the Scriptures with the proposed interpretation and not just "take their word for it" (because they are not infallible - they are men) and often if you are close in your walk with God the Spirit will confirm the word to you personally if it is true. But I object to the idea that the Pope and bishops have a monopoly on exposing proper "faith articles".

Josh,

OK, I found your long post!

The Spirit, "holds the office" as you say, but He shares Himself and this office with men whom He has appointed. Thus, the laying of hands is the visible means in the Bible and the ancient Church to pass on the Spirit and the office of authority. Sure, we are to "check" the Scriptures. But we have confidence that the Spirit will not lead us astray - Apostolic Tradition and Scritpures cannot disagree. The Bishops do NOT have a monopoly on the articles of faith, just DEFINING them. We believe in something called the "sense of the faithful", the entire Church's belief in a proposition based on its daily worship, devotion, and practice. The Bishops determine what their flocks are doing and believing and more clearly define what the flock is already doing and believing.

They most certainly may have some authority since they are Church government but they are men, and just like ordinary Pastors they are subject to being wrong. The Catholic Church has also through many, many councils revised doctrines over and over again (perhaps for the better, but it goes to show that it is not a perfected process), and such is the situation with all Churches. You can never reach the "level playing field" with absolute revelation of the Bible, its a constantly advancing understanding as the Holy Spirit himself (not the Pope) reveals the Word of God to the believer who reads with a ready heart (good soil for the word to grow in).

Yes, God is constantly advancing man's understanding of His once-given revelation to the Apostles - thus, Councils more clearly define articles of the faith. The Councils do not "revise" or "contradict" themselves. They are merely attempts to more clearly define what we believe already. Certainly, the result of private interpretation has left open the door of not knowing what God's revelation IS.

Actually I have a suggestion. Since it seems Catholicism is the hot-button topic among the natives of late, why don't we put this into a practical test and truely evaluate what we have been generalizing on. If my memory serves me right (correct me if I'm wrong), you say that transsubstantiation is such a doctrine passed down orally but not in the Scripture, thus (obviously) why you would defend such a tradition as you do now. Why don't you make a thread on it, so that you can inject some reasonableness into the topic by spearheading it and molding/presenting it in the manner you wish, and do so with support with actual quotes of such an early doctrine that mentions it being part of the Apostolic tradition. Then we can discuss and evalute the truthfulness and/or meaning of such texts/quotes. I honestly would enjoy such a straight-shot approach in comparison to all this "Catholic hubub" nonsense that's been going on recently.

If only more people who disagree with Catholicism were like you! Unfortunately, if I were to start a thread, it would just draw out more of the attacks anew. Then, I'd have to defend on yet another front!

As to transubstantiation, for your benefit, not to start another post, I can give you a few examples of what early Christians thought about the Eucharistic bread and wine. Then, make the logical conclusion that this is transubstantiation. The accidents (appearance) doesn't change, nor did it for them. Yet, the substance (essence) does, as it did for them. Thus, the Aristotilian word is appropriately descrbing what happens and is considered Apostolic. Here are a few quotes just from the 100-200 AD period...

Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1).

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (Letter to the Ephesians 20).

Justin Martyr 150 AD

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these, but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus (First Apology 66)

Irenaeus 189 AD

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life  flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Against Heresies 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria 191 AD

"Eat my flesh" [Jesus] says, "and drink my blood." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3).

Clearly, the Eucharistic bread didn't change appearance, but it took on a new meaning for the first Christians - thus, the term is appropriate. The term, defined 1000 years later, can be called Apostolic because its meaning was believed by the earliest Church teachings.

Once again I lay emphasis on the personal teaching of the Holy Spirit. Continual studying will yield spiritual understanding, and that comes of the Spirit alone.

But what happens, Josh, when you have two Protestants who are "equally in the Spirit"? Say you and Solo disagree on an article of the faith. WHO is the Spirit leading? Clearly, this is not God's intent to keep us unaware of His truth.

God never promised to protect the individual from error, but the COMMUNITY, the Church. IT is the foundation and pillar of the truth. It is the ENTIRE COMMUNITY, in its own way, that is infallibly protected, not the individual. Even the Pope is not protected UNLESS he is speaking in capacity of his position as speaking for the entire Christian Church when defining an article of faith. Consider the Pastorals. Paul charges the LEADERS to maintain the truth of the articles of faith, not the individual.

And I honestly hope you take me up on my proposition above for making a straight-forward thread so that all this hubub can quit beating around the "generalization bush," so that we can actually get to the heart of some specific issues.

I am not a fan of "hub-bub"!

I wish I was as optimistic as you on such matters, but I am fairly certain that I would only be stoking the fire that has been kindled of late.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Francis,

Thanks for replying. I'll try to get to your post soon but I have a crazy busy schedule this weekend. I'll be graduating with my 2-year degree tommorow! I'm quite excited. I'll try to get your post Sunday afternoon or Monday. Wish me luck for tommorow (or better yet pray for me).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

Thanks for replying. I'll try to get to your post soon but I have a crazy busy schedule this weekend. I'll be graduating with my 2-year degree tommorow! I'm quite excited. I'll try to get your post Sunday afternoon or Monday. Wish me luck for tommorow (or better yet pray for me).

God Bless,

~Josh

Josh,

Congratulations on the successful completion of your degree. What is the major in? I will pray that you do not trip going down the aisle!

Take your time getting back to me. Enjoy your celebration.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

Josh,

Congratulations on the successful completion of your degree. What is the major in? I will pray that you do not trip going down the aisle!

Take your time getting back to me. Enjoy your celebration.

Regards

Thank you. My degree is in Computer Science - Networking. Oh, & haha - I prayed the same thing right before I walked into the auditorium.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

The Spirit, "holds the office" as you say, but He shares Himself and this office with men whom He has appointed. Thus, the laying of hands is the visible means in the Bible and the ancient Church to pass on the Spirit and the office of authority. Sure, we are to "check" the Scriptures. But we have confidence that the Spirit will not lead us astray - Apostolic Tradition and Scritpures cannot disagree. The Bishops do NOT have a monopoly on the articles of faith, just DEFINING them.

I am confused by the meaning of your last sentance here. I tried to make the point that Bishops have no particular higher standing because of an "office" than the lay preacher or elder who is anointed by God to teach God's people, thus defining doctrines should also not be limited to Catholic Bishops. This also makes me wonder if we as the Church will ever develop trans-denominational boards where such matters can be discussed.

Yes, God is constantly advancing man's understanding of His once-given revelation to the Apostles - thus, Councils more clearly define articles of the faith. The Councils do not "revise" or "contradict" themselves. They are merely attempts to more clearly define what we believe already. Certainly, the result of private interpretation has left open the door of not knowing what God's revelation IS.

Though I understand what you were trying to say for sake of historical clarity there were things which the Catholic Church declared which they later did recant or revise. One thing which was redefined was "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which was changed/revised at the convening of the Second Vatican Council. Also not all the Popes in Roman Catholic history were anointed by God. William Tyndale is reported as saying the Foxe's Book of Martyrs that he was doubtful that the current Pope was even among those appointed for heaven (meaning he had his doubts concerning if the Pope was even saved). Also even Pope Leo X said "What profit has not the fable of Christ brought us?" I'm not a Catholic basher, you know this so far, but I am here to show you that Catholicism is not he gleaming global beacon of Christianity who has always faithfully conveyed truths to the Church, you have to excercise caution no to sell allegiance to someone just because of the position they occupy. Just because I respect the office of Pastor, that does not mean I agree with every Pastor I hear, and yes even elders and deacons and others up the Church heiarchy can be wrong as well. And unfortunately the Catholic Church was responsible for most of the Dark and Middle ages because of the limitations and political power it wielded over the people. I know the Catholic Church has changed alot from its corrupt history during the Dark Ages, so I'm not trying to throw that in your face but you surely must be aware that the Catholic Church has not always instituted things according to God's word. This is where I council caution. I will refine this arguement to an application soon, so that you don't think I'm pulling this stuff out of my hat just to throw it out there. I just wanted to show you that the Catholic Church, in the past, has had occasion and even ocasional need to revise some things it did. Martin Luther may not have had everything right but I believe he had good grounds for nailing at least a few of the theses he did on the Church door.

If only more people who disagree with Catholicism were like you! Unfortunately, if I were to start a thread, it would just draw out more of the attacks anew. Then, I'd have to defend on yet another front!

Well thank you. But I'll stick up for you. I've been a moderator on a Christian forum site before. I can lay the smack down on any hub-bub going on.

Edit: A great idea just occured to me. We can have my proposed conversation without any interjection from others if we put it in the debate forum that was created recently (since it is for 1-on-1 discussions only). Of course this would be very formal and layed back discussion like we are having now and we would attempt to work up to a common understanding on our points. And if any "hubub" occurs it would be solely my fault.

I'll just carry over your last post and a duplicate of this post over there so we can have a more straight shot at discussing this very interesting discussion we are having.

Once I start over there I'll address your quotes that you have so generously provided and we can work from there. But unfortunately it once again is time for me to go back to work (I only have 15 minute breaks). I'll get on it a lunch time.


~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

I need to go back and add & edit some things in my last post, so if you can wait until I do so that would be great.

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

I need to go back and add & edit some things in my last post, so if you can wait until I do so that would be great.

~Josh

OK. But a quick note about bishops, so as to try to clear up my "last sentence that was difficult to understand".

God has given the community all sorts of men, to include overseers and elders, who have been given authority in such matters. I think the latter writings of the NT are pretty clear on this authority within the community, such as the Pastorals.

Note: The Catholic Church believes that the sense of the faithful is infallibly guided. Thus, the "heirarchy" can only define articles of faith that the community ALREADY believes and practices.

I await your comments on this and your edits.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

I completed my edits and additions. Thanks. And like I said in that post, I'll proceed with what I suggested at lunch time.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

I tried to make the point that Bishops have no particular higher standing because of an "office" than the lay preacher or elder who is anointed by God to teach God's people, thus defining doctrines should also not be limited to Catholic Bishops. This also makes me wonder if we as the Church will ever develop trans-denominational boards where such matters can be discussed.

There are currently "denominational boards" among Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and even Evangelicals on the issue of justification. When one looks at the results of these boards, one discovers that we can clarify a lot on definitions and meanings of particular phrases. I have found that we sometimes talk past each other because we have a different meaning for the same word. When further discussion continues and the polemics stop, I see there is a lot more agreement than what some believe exists.

Though I understand what you were trying to say for sake of historical clarity there were things which the Catholic Church declared which they later did recant or revise. One thing which was redefined was "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which was changed/revised at the convening of the Second Vatican Council.

The idea "no salvation outside the Church" has not changed - we still believe that. What is developing is what IS the Church and who is part of it. Vatican 2 has refined this view - and quite frankly, there is patristic support that the Church is more inclusive than the polemics of the Protestant Reformation would suggest. Look at 1 John 5:12. Such a person is part of the body of Christ, in some myterious manner, no? I believe that such Scriptures give validity to the idea that even a Muslim could be part of the Church, the Body of Christ, and not be aware of it. There is support for such ideas throughout the Church Fathers.

Also not all the Popes in Roman Catholic history were anointed by God. William Tyndale is reported as saying the Foxe's Book of Martyrs that he was doubtful that the current Pope was even among those appointed for heaven (meaning he had his doubts concerning if the Pope was even saved).

Here is a matter of definition. The Pope has been anointed, but that doesn't mean he is going to go to heaven. St. John Chrysostom wrote "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops". I do not believe there was ever an idea within the Church that people were automatically going to heaven because they were leaders of the Church. Thus, our ideas of "saved", I believe, are different. We believe a person is saved by baptism - but it doesn't follow that they are going to heaven.

Also even Pope Leo X said "What profit has not the fable of Christ brought us?"

I am familiar with Pope Leo and I would say that quote is taken out of context (like the verse in the Psalms that says "there is no God")

I am here to show you that Catholicism is not he gleaming global beacon of Christianity who has always faithfully conveyed truths to the Church, you have to excercise caution no to sell allegiance to someone just because of the position they occupy.

Nor was the Christian Church of the Bible. And yet, here we stand. I believe that many Protestants err in this aspect because they expect the perfect Church, the New Jerusalem, to have already come down from heaven in this age. The Church is both divine and human. Until the second coming of Christ, the Church will continue to have its issues. However, God DID promise to protect it from error. The Church's Bishops have narrowed that understanding to only when defining matters of faith and morals in its role as shepherd to the people of God.

the Catholic Church was responsible for most of the Dark and Middle ages because of the limitations and political power it wielded over the people.

It is sad that you hold to that fallacy. I was a military historian before becoming Catholic, and I can assure you that there was NOTHING ELSE to maintain culture or stability with the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 400's. The Church, which is not a military power, brought some stability to Western Europe during a time when plagues and war was rampant. The opposite of your charge is more likely.

the Catholic Church has not always instituted things according to God's word. This is where I council caution.

!!! Neither the individual Christian, nor ANY organized group of Christians, can make the claim that your propose. Are you expecting a perfect body of believers? There is no utopia. God guides His Church, but this doesn't mean He keeps men from sinning, making poor political choices, steps on the toes of unsuspecting and needy people, and so forth. The Church doesn't make any of those claims. It says that its defined doctrine is infallible. Again, look to the Bible. WHY did Paul write to the Corinthians? Was he establishing a written Scripture or were there PROBLEMS in Corinth? You HAVE read 1 Cor, I presume? We could list a number of issues that Paul personally addressed. Not a perfect Church, huh... I can do the same with practically every other letter written in the New Testament, excluding the Gospels.

We place our trust in God, that He will remain with us, despite some of the problems we see in the community. This was true in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and we see no reason why this has discontinued.

A great idea just occured to me. We can have my proposed conversation without any interjection from others if we put it in the debate forum that was created recently (since it is for 1-on-1 discussions only). Of course this would be very formal and layed back discussion like we are having now and we would attempt to work up to a common understanding on our points. And if any "hubub" occurs it would be solely my fault.

I'll tell you what. We seem to be jumping around on various subjects. This discussion seems to have left the "apocrypha and scripture" subject. You have also brought up the Eucharist, and the Church and now, the history of the Church.

If you feel like making a further contribution to "apocrypha and scripture" thread - if you feel that you have other evidence that the Deuterocanonicals are NOT Scriptures, then please post them here. Otherwise, PM me and let me know what and where you would like to talk about another subject. I think we should stick to one subject rather than jump around. If you want to start a new thread or enter the debate forum, let me know.

Joe

 

[golfjack]

reply

Maybe I can add a little to this topic by seeing what the Bible says about appointing men to the ministry. Acts 13:2-3: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Now separate to me Barnabus and Saul for the work to which I have called them. 3. Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

We see here that they prayed and fasted. We see it is the Holy Spirit that appointed them to go out and preach the Gospel. We see here that they had hands laid before they left.

You see, The book of Acts Church is a role model how men can be appointed to ministry. The Church actually was activated after Pentacost when the Holy Spirit fell on 120. Anyway, this is what my church uses to promote people in the Kingdom. Pretty simple Huh? No legalism like the Catholic Church.



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[cyberjosh]

Look in the debate section. I just made a new thread. I'll reply to your post there if you will be so kind as to copy it over there.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Francis,

Real quick before we enter debate in the new forum. I need to fact gather for a minute on your views. If I have a question we can expand on it in the new thread.

Two simple questions so I can understand your view on things:

1. Do you think Martin Luther had good cause or even any grounds from which to speak against the Catholic Church & start the Protestant Reformation or was he wrong? (I'm not asking however whether you agree 100% with all his views - because I don't even do that).

2. Do you acknowledge that there was some (I'll try not to be steroetypical) corruption in the Catholic Church in the Early & Middle Ages A.D., and if so then what bearing or significance does that have on how we should view the historical way the Catholic Church instituted some things?

Answering that would help me out soooo much so that I don't inadvertantly frustrate you (as some of your explanation marks above in your last post would indicate) without reason.

Oh, and just to help you out I didn't mean above to try to compare the Catholic Church against the backdrop of a perfect Church (so I obviously know that no inididual or Church qualifies for such a thing). I would never demand anything so outrageous. I'll clarify as necessary in the debate thread.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Francis,

Real quick before we enter debate in the new forum. I need to fact gather for a minute on your views. If I have a question we can expand on it in the new thread.

I have entered the debate thread and await your topic. I will answer here your two questions for anyone else desiring to interject.

1. Do you think Martin Luther had good cause or even any grounds from which to speak against the Catholic Church & start the Protestant Reformation or was he wrong? (I'm not asking however whether you agree 100% with all his views - because I don't even do that).

He certainly had very good reason to speak out against the abuses that were in play during the early 1500's. However, he cast aside the Church in his discussion with Eck. By saying that the Councils had no authority, he was cutting himself off from the Community. I will say that many of the greatest saints were able to call for reform WITHOUT leaving the Catholic Church, such as St. Teresa of Avila.

2. Do you acknowledge that there was some (I'll try not to be steroetypical) corruption in the Catholic Church in the Early & Middle Ages A.D., and if so then what bearing or significance does that have on how we should view the historical way the Catholic Church instituted some things?

Of course there was - and there certainly STILL remains some "corruption" within the Church - if you view corruption as sinful or against the will of God. Again, we are all sinners. The Church is a hospital for sinners. It is for US that God gave us a community to worship in common. We need the support of this community to help us come to God. Naturally, there will be times when we tend to our own selfish needs rather than the giving of self as Christ calls for. In that sense, there will always be corruption. I do not see this corruption extending to the Church's TEACHINGS. Now, these teachings are either Biblical or Apostolic. We can both agree that not every decision made by the heirarchy was based on that revelation. The Church made political decisions. The Church made disciplinary decisions. Individuals WITHIN the Church made LOCAL decisions that were NOT necessarily in line with the Universal Church (such as your indulgences question).

Can the explanation or execution of doctrine become tainted by a local priest or pastor? Sure. It happened in the Bible, and so I do not see why an individual cannot mislead the flock. However, the universal Church cannot err in matters of faith or morals. We need to make that distinction. And the Church has always believed this - as Scriptures also relate in 1 Tim 3:15.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

I am familiar with Pope Leo and I would say that quote is taken out of context (like the verse in the Psalms that says "there is no God")

Joe,

I meant to ask you earlier but I forgot, could you explain to me of what you refer to? I would be interested in hearing the explanation.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,

I meant to ask you earlier but I forgot, could you explain to me of what you refer to? I would be interested in hearing the explanation.

God Bless,

~Josh

I was responding to your quote from Leo X. I was merely saying that the bible itself has quotes that, taken out of context, can say something very different then the intent. Thus, one of the Psalms, I believe 122 off the top of my head, says "there is no God". In context, the entire quote says : "the fool in his heart says, there is no God". I suspect that the Pope was quoted out of context.

Joe

 

[cyberjosh]

I was responding to your quote from Leo X. I was merely saying that the bible itself has quotes that, taken out of context, can say something very different then the intent. Thus, one of the Psalms, I believe 122 off the top of my head, says "there is no God". In context, the entire quote says : "the fool in his heart says, there is no God". I suspect that the Pope was quoted out of context.

Joe

Thanks, but I knew that's what you were refering to but I wanted you to back up that assumption. I just now noticed you said "suspect". I wouldn't just assume "Oh, a Pope would never say that" if I were you. Pope Leo X also instituted penance to pay for sins (which is a useless sacrament) as a way to extort money from the people. Other Popes weren't as bad as him but he sure is no innocent Pope (from what I've read of him anyway).