Well, that should be incendiary enough to get a discussion going on between Christians.
Basically I want you to put forth one argument as to why you believe the above to be false, and we'll try to flesh it out in an adversarial but fraternal manner.
Catholicism is the Fullness of the Christian Faith
Posts
Total:
124
-->
@DeusVult
For starters, it might help to make a distinction between Catholicism and the Orthodox church who make the same claim. I think it's necessary to do that before going further so we're not burdened by seemingly parallel claims. It's too bad that Orthodox member hasn't been around.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yeah,
I had been looking forward to a solid discussion with Mopac1, but he is gone. It really comes down to the Papacy (oddly enough the same real problem for many Protestants). The rest of the issues could be resolved.
Which catholicism? The one established in 2nd century or the one today?
-->
@Melcharaz
The Catholic Church - or what most people would call the Roman Catholic Church.
-->
@DeusVult
One thing I perceive to be a problem with the Catholic church, is the claim of any particular individuals being the infallible oracles of God. Christians have to admit at times to have been in error, or thought they were in error. Even Peter had to do this when he had the vision of the unclean animals. He was a full fledged believer at the time, and had to acknowledge that he was tied to a traditional view. The Christians during the WWII who thought Adolph Hitler was the anti-christ (not just a anti-christ) had to admit they were wrong.
Can the Catholic church admit to error (at times)?
That didnt answer my question. The 2nd century church or current day church?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Here you have to make the distinction between the individual and official teaching.
The doctrine of the Church is without error. Individuals can be in error. So not everything every priest, bishop or Pope says is protected against error.
However, every Protestant would have to admit that Moses was given the ability to infallibly speak on God's behalf. So if God did it once, is he not able to make sure that the Church he founded does not teach error?
As for Peter, he was not teaching that Christians had to follow the Jewish dietary laws. He simply held the personal belief that he had to continue the Jewish dietary laws. He was informed otherwise.
Can the Catholic church admit to error (at times)?
The Church is bound to its teachings and doctrine. That isn't to say that individuals have not made errors. So as an example, the Church cannot change its stance on Transubstantiation; it can say that the actions of individuals done in the name of the Church were not right/just/etc...
-->
@Melcharaz
I would say there is no distinction between the two. That is like saying who is the real Melcharaz? The one 10 years ago, or the one today?
-->
@Melcharaz
One additional point, I would say it was established in the first century on Pentecost, not the second century.
Oh there is definately a difference. One uses tradition to define scripture, the other is sola scriptura. One has a pope encouraging universalism, the other didnt even have the concept of a pope.
This claim of catholicism has fallen so far that its not recognizable from the one claimed in scripture.
Which is why i dont consider catholicism today as christians.
-->
@Melcharaz
So your argument is that in the second century the Church was sola scriptura and the modern Church uses Tradition?
I'm trying to limit each person to a single argument at a time - for clarity sake.
Its not my argument, its the truth. The letters paul wrote are what was cosidered traditions. And they are part of the inspired writings.
-->
@DeusVult
@Melcharaz.
Quite obviously all archaic religious mythologies have varied over time.
Just as the purposes and aims of popular religions have been forced to change to meet the demands of an evolving society.
Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.
In terms of wealth the Catholic Church is reputed to be No.1.....So this would seemingly make it the fullest by todays standards and requirements.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Can the Catholic church admit to error (at times)?
Can Christians? Period!
-->
@zedvictor4
Just as the purposes and aims of popular religions have been forced to change to meet the demands of an evolving society.
Good response but with one exception.
-->
@zedvictor4
Quite obviously all archaic religious mythologies have varied over time.
They have variations yes as do each culture, but very little have varied relevant to "time". The concept of a Creator is not something that varies, it is universal despite varying expressions or interpretations of that Reality. The basic idea of God or Creator is simplistic.
Just as the purposes and aims of popular religions have been forced to change to meet the demands of an evolving society.
Their cultures and ideas relating to the world sure, because when dealing with religions you have a mixture of their culture that reflected the time period they lived in. However, the foundation and heart of their spiritual context remains consistent. That's because while culture and technology advances spirituality is time-less, there's not much to change because it transcends the carnal world and their cultural upbringings.
Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.
Organized religion and institutions are big business sure, but not the products of spirituality. Spirituality deals with the inner qualities of souls, it's not necessarily relevant to the carnal world. Flesh is flesh spirit is spirit. One changes one ceases to change, one is temporal the other eternal.
In terms of wealth the Catholic Church is reputed to be No.1.....So this would seemingly make it the fullest by todays standards and requirements.
But in spirituality those standards no longer matter, it's ironic....the standards that matter within a carnal world are what make them weak in the context of spirituality. Money and wealth signify very little if anything because they are temporal, they are connected with the illusions of success. If this is what makes them strong in a worldly context it is what makes them weak and vulnerable in a spiritual context. And it's very easy to see that in a spiritual context these institutions and leaders are sick, and the perversion that takes place behind closed door with the most innocent victims exposes their weakness.
-->
@EtrnlVw
But in spirituality those standards no longer matter.
Well I'm sure that some people are inspired by religion in this way.
But out of the approximately 1.25 billion Catholics worldwide how many do you think actually regard their religion in this way?
I would suggest that most just go through the motions of a conditioned way of life, simply because they think that is what they are supposed to be doing.
I would further suggest that, Inevitably and unavoidably, money is the bottom line of most peoples day to day lives.
-->
@DeusVult
the idea of an infallible leader wasn't present in the early church. it slowly grew over hundreds of years. if that was a true doctrine it would have been present more explicitly.
another problem is that the church has contradicted itself on the most straightforward looking way. on the issues of 'no salvation outside the catholic church', 'no salvation of unbaptized infants', and the death penalty. i know there are hoops that you could jump through to say there's no contradiction, but these hoops are not the most straightforward way of thinking.
i suggest you read through this link for a ton more content on why the catholic church isn't what it says it is.
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I'm sure that some people are inspired by religion in this way.
Well it's an objective fact, in terms of spirituality.
But out of the approximately 1.25 billion Catholics worldwide how many do you think actually regard their religion in this way?
I would have to say it's somewhat irrelevant. Their opinions about their brand of religion isn't relevant to the facts.
I would suggest that most just go through the motions of a conditioned way of life, simply because they think that is what they are supposed to be doing.
I would agree. Then you could see what I mean by it being irrelevant, "conditioned" minds and patterns of behavior are exactly that.
I would further suggest that, Inevitably and unavoidably, money is the bottom line of most peoples day to day lives.
Yes, that's an aspect of the material world, I never denied that. But it's not relevant in a spiritual context. I'm sure you can figure what I mean.
-->
@Melcharaz
Its not my argument, its the truth. The letters paul wrote are what was cosidered traditions. And they are part of the inspired writings.
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
So Catholics would completely agree. We are adhering to the writings in accordance to the oral traditions that were established in the 1st Century.
-->
@n8nrgmi
the idea of an infallible leader wasn't present in the early church. it slowly grew over hundreds of years. if that was a true doctrine it would have been present more explicitly.
Are you sure about that? It may have taken time to flush it out into formal doctrine, but it was always there.
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 16:16-17
So here Jesus has shown that the first pope had the ability to speak infallibly.
A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. - Acts 10:13-16
So Peter unilaterally set forth a practice for the entire Church through an infallible means.
After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. - Acts 15:7-12
All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. - Acts 15:7-12
So Peter listened to both sides. Once Peter spoke, none disagreed with him - the decision was made.
In about 95-96 AD, Corinth wrote to Rome for clarification on a matter of faith. Pope Clement responded. What is curious is that the Apostle John was still alive and physically closer to Corinth. Thus it would have been more logical to ask St. John for clarification if Rome did not possess special authority.
“Rome has spoken; the cause is finished” - St. Augustine
It is quite clear that Peter and his successors had a special status above the other apostles. The Church operates as it does until there is some dispute. It is only at that time of dispute that it makes a formal proclamation.
-->
@DeusVult
Oral traditions are tainted eventually. The same traditions are both oral and written. I adhere to written tradition as it isnt corrupted by mans understanding, but at most by weather and time
-->
@Melcharaz
So you deny the power of the Holy Spirit to protect the teachings of God's Church? Funny that you have already discounted the part of the Bible that you disagree with.
How do you deal with something like the Eucharist? Do you believe that it is the body of Christ as he says or not? If not, you are simply following a different "tradition".
A perfect book is useless without a perfect interpretation of that book.
My interpretation is through the book and the spirit. God by divine providence protects his word, but that doesnt mean he instantly mutes people who speak wrongly of it, or misinterpret it.
I have yet to disagree with scripture, what i disagree with is the idea that man has to interpret it by traditions they establish.
Ill stick to the word of God and be saved, you keep your "oral traditions" and not obey God. Unless yall repent and obey scripture, you will be damned.
who cares honestly?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Depends on what you are talking about. If you are regarding this thread, you dont have to care, though it would be righteous to give truth and instruction on how to serve God.
If about this topic, then everyone should care, as a belief that denies scripture will lead to damnation. Specifically if it denies Jesus Christ and how to be saved.
My interpretation is through the book and the spirit. God by divine providence protects his word, but that doesnt mean he instantly mutes people who speak wrongly of it, or misinterpret it.
Yet every person will say that they interpret through the spirit. And they all come to different conclusions. So how can you trust your interpretation is the correct one?
My argument never was that God mutes anyone who speaks wrongly, but rather He protects His Church against teaching error.
I have yet to disagree with scripture, what i disagree with is the idea that man has to interpret it by traditions they establish.
That is a statement we both agree upon.
Ill stick to the word of God and be saved, you keep your "oral traditions" and not obey God. Unless yall repent and obey scripture, you will be damned.
The ability to independently choose how to interpret the Bible as you have chosen to do, is a tradition not found in the Bible.
A couple of last questions. Why do you believe the Bible is the Bible? Who said it was? Did Jesus leave a book or a Church?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you are a Christian, it is of the utmost importance. Your very soul may depend on it.
Additionally it is a debate website. The same question could be asked of everything on here.
Jesus left both. The spirit of truth and a church. You will know who interprets the scripture correctly by their fruits.
If a person says "speak in tongues to be saved" watch that person and compare it to scripture. If a persons says " faith alone will save you" watch that person and compare to scripture.
How do we know we abide in the truth? We love God, we love the brethern, and we obey God. (See 1 john 2:1-9)
Hereby we know we are in the truth.