The Bible, the Papacy and the Church

Why? You are not bowing down to the icon, but to our Lord.

You know the icon is not really Jesus, right?

 

Well, I have posted Scriptural evidence for certain doctrines (such as confession to a priest---using James' letter; and Christ's declaration that his apostles will have his authority on earth, which then also would apply to naming successors).

I also find that the entirety of Catholic theology to be the fullness of salvation. Which Church continues to practice all of Christ's ordained blessed sacraments? Which Church believes Christ when he says that only those who eat his flesh will find salvation? Which Church was founded in the first century by a man from Galilee who rose from the dead (and not by another man throughout the years)? Which church is "One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church"?

From the beginning of Christian history, how were Christians described? How was the Church described? I think you'll find that they were Catholic (with some exceptions, like Marcion etc). Read Clement, Ignatius and the Didache.

 

Did Jesus when talking to Satan say that only God is to be worshiped and only God served?

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say just because Jesus gave the apostles the ability to do something, that means that priests can do it?

 

But I believe that Jesus is God.

Well Jesus gave his apostles his authority, which would also include appointing successors, which would then continue on and on and on.

 

Again, what purpose does this icon serve?

 

Okay, The Catholic church teaches the trinity, did the writings of Clement and Ignatius teach the trinity? What did the Didache have to say abut the trinity? Interestingly they seem to be somewhat silent about the trinity, in fact some of their statements even seem to contradict the trinity. Why is that?

 

What purpose does a symbolic Eucharist serve? Remembrance of Christ and his sacrifice. It can help focus our prayers.

 

While the Didache does not say "trinity" as the term came into use later (much like transubstantiation in other writings) the concept is there when it repeats the baptism formula of "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

Can you give me some examples of the contradictory Trinitarian statements?

From Clement to Corinth: Clement uses the Old Testament affirmation "The Lord liveth", substituting the Trinity thus: "As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth and the Holy Spirit -- the faith and hope of the elect, so surely he that performeth", etc. (58).

 

I guess you'll have to show me that scripture. I know the Scriptures say that we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God but please show me where it says we must believe he is God.

 

Good point and thank you for bringing that up. Of course we should all give forgive the sins others do to us, it's a core Christian belief and one I strive to do at all costs.
My point, and maybe I should have been clearer, is it is up to us as humans to forgive each other, but only the Lord can truly clean the sin off the person's slate and forgive.

Actually it does matter. The Lord states he does not want us to make and use statues of things to worship instead of him, he did not say we cant take photos.

Actually I didn't use it to back up my point, I just used it as a little FYI to what happened to Solomon in the end. Be warned when you mess with idols kids.... lol

This still brings me back to the 2nd commandment. "the only image Catholics worship" so basically you are saying you still worship an image of him (a general "you" to mean the Church btw, not a specific "you") which is against the 2nd commandment.

Oh, I do not dispute we should forgive sins, and maybe I should have made myself more clear the first time (for which I apologise). My point is this, and I'll give a hypothetical example. A man steals a purse from his friend and takes the money inside it, but later on is overcome by guilt. He prays to the Lord and asks for forgiveness for his sin and the Lord accepts his repentance and wipes the sin away. The next day he gives the purse and money back to his friend and asks her to forgive him, and although she is hurt, she says she will try (but will watch him like a hawk around her possessions).
The point is, even though we should ask both of them to forgive you, I believe only the Lord can actually clear that sin from your name, Of course the girl he stole the purse from can forgive him too but if he only asked her to forgive and not the Lord, the sin would still be on his name.
And I believe the girl in the story could easily be replaced with a priest in the same situation, for they are both normal humans and have no heavenly powers to forgive. The apostles were given this power to forgive sins, priests in the Church are not, so I see them as any other human, able to forgive in the most human sense of the word but not forgive in the heavenly sense.

Ok so, how aboot these:

Deuteronomy 12:32 [FONT=&quot]“[/FONT]Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

Psalms 119: 160 “The entirety of Your word is truth”

Irrelevant. The icon is still made in the form of a heavenly thing and so violates the 2nd commandment, regardless of whether it is Jesus or not.

Please cite biblical passages to the "sacraments".

Again, please cite your references so I can study over them. My knowledge is pretty limited in that respect lol.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm This is a good read on the origins of the word "Catholic".

The very first Christians would have been Jewish, which is where you are mistaken.
Practice among the groups that followed Jesus included those who were strictly Jewish and was centered around Jerusalem and led by James the Just. In Christian circles, "Nazarene" later came to be used as a label for those faithful to Jewish law. These Jewish Christians, originally a central group in Christianity, were not at first declared to be unorthodox, but were later excluded and denounced, by both Gentile Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism who tended to ostracise these Jews but there is no record of real persecution. Those were the first Christians and they called themselves Jews. Like it or loathe it.


But on to Rome as that is the point of your statement. The only evidence to point any link between Peter and the early "Catholics" in Rome of the time is in Catholic tradition (Against Heresies c. 175-185 by Irenaeus of Lyons) and nothing is mentioned in the Bible so although I'd agree Peter was given the head of the church I don't know whether I'd agree or not with the view that he was given succession of the Church (there are many countless ways the phrase "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." has been translated and I do not want to make judgement on something I do not really understand)

The Church began calling itself "Catholic" circa 107 C.E. (about 10 years after the last book of the New Testament was written), when the Greek term "Katholikos" (meaning universal) appears in the Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans: to distinguish itself from heretical sects which kept popping up, even before Constantine's time --for example, Donatism, Manicheism, Gnosticism, Arianism, to name a few.

The early Christians used the world Catholic to suggest they were the universal, complete church, using the teachings of the Word and the guidance of the apostles, in comparison to the other churches of the time which did not follow the apostles.
In the Apostle's creed, the correct form of the word Catholic is in small letters "catholic" to mean "universal" from the original Greek rather than "Catholic" with a capital C to mean referring to the church itself.

Of course, the Catholic church these days is rather different to the days of old and for one to say now the Catholic church is wholly the same teachings and doctrines as in the days of the Early church are clearly blind so no, I do not believe it can say it is the holiest church or even that it is still "catholic" in the original sense of the word anymore. Fancy that... the Catholic church isn't catholic!!

(and can you believe this one post took two and a half hours to type up while I was getting all the information? phew, I'm exhausted...)

 

your hardheaded

 

Well, most Christians don't use the bread and the wine to help focus prayers and also the bread and the wine we are commanded to do, whereas I'm still looking that scripture that commands us to use icons to help focus our prayers.

 

Glad you asked,
First, let's start with Clement of Rome

In the material said to have been written by him, he makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly. In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he states:

“Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”

“May God, who seeth all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh—who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people—grant to every soul that calleth upon His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering.”

Clement does not say that Jesus or the holy spirit is equal to God. He presents Almighty God (not just “Father”) as distinct from the Son. God is spoken of as superior, since Christ is “sent forth” by God, and God “chose” Christ. Showing that God and Christ are two separate and unequal identities, Clement said:

“We will beg with earnest prayer and supplication that the Creator of the universe will keep intact the precise number of his elect in the whole world, through his beloved Child Jesus Christ. . . . We realize you [God] alone are ‘highest among the highest’ . . . You alone are the guardian of spirits and the God of all flesh.”

“Let all the nations realize that you are the only God, that Jesus Christ is your Child.”

Clement calls God (not just “Father”) “the highest,” and refers to Jesus as God’s “Child.” He also notes regarding Jesus: “Since he reflects God’s splendor, he is as superior to the angels as his title is more distinguished than theirs.” Jesus reflects God’s splendor, but he does not equal it, just as the moon reflects sunlight but does not equal the source of that light, the sun.

If the Son of God were equal to God, who is the heavenly Father, it would have been unnecessary for Clement to say that Jesus was superior to the angels, since that would have been obvious. And his wording shows his recognition that while the Son is superior to angels, he is inferior to Almighty God.

Clement’s position is quite plain: The Son is inferior to the Father and is secondary to him. Clement never viewed Jesus as sharing in a godhead with the Father. He shows that the Son is dependent upon the Father, that is, God, and says definitely that the Father is ‘God alone,’ sharing His position with no one. And nowhere does Clement give the holy spirit equality with God. Thus, there is no Trinity at all in Clement’s writings.

 

Next let’s look at Ignatius

Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit.

Even if Ignatius had said that the Son was equal to the Father in eternity, power, position, and wisdom, it would still not be a Trinity, for nowhere did he say that the holy spirit was equal to God in those ways. But Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father in such ways or in any other. Instead, he showed that the Son is in subjection to the One who is superior, Almighty God.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son. He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”

Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.” Similarly, Ignatius said: “There is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’ and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, ‘by whom are all things.’” He also writes:

“The Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, . . . even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He [the Son], ‘the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.’”

“There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. . . . Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.”

True, Ignatius calls the Son “God the Word.” But using the word “God” for the Son does not necessarily mean equality with Almighty God. The Bible also calls the Son “God” at Isaiah 9:6. John 1:18 calls the Son “the only-begotten god.” Being vested with power and authority from Jehovah God, the Father, the Son could properly be termed a “mighty one,” which is what “god” basically means.—Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2.

Regardless of which of his writings are genuine, they show at best that Ignatius believed in a duality of God and his Son. This was certainly not a duality of equals, for the Son is always presented as lesser than God and subordinate to him. Thus, regardless of how one views the Ignatian writings, a Trinity doctrine is not to be found in them.

 

As for The Didache.
One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown.

The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19.3 But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom. In its 10th chapter, The Didache includes the following confession of faith in the form of a prayer:

“We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant.”

There is no Trinity in this. In The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Edwin Hatch quotes the foregoing passage and then says:

“In the original sphere of Christianity there does not appear to have been any great advance upon these simple conceptions. The doctrine upon which stress was laid was, that God is, that He is one, that He is almighty and everlasting, that He made the world, that His mercy is over all His works. There was no taste for metaphysical discussion.”

We can also talk about Polycarp, Hermas and Papias, if you wish.

 

Papal and Council infallibility have no Scriptural basis whatsoever. If Peter was the first Pope and therefore infallibal why did Paul rebuke him for refusing to associate with Gentile Christians?

 

I like their custom of worshipping on the correct day.

 

Because not everything a Pope teaches is infallible.

 

Aren't we all.

 

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin." Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 7 (A.D. 110).

This is a pretty unambigious statement that says Jesus is the Lord.