[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal

Well, you are moving closer to the truth that the Roman Catholic sect was not around in 33 CE.

Try to follow. The Catholic Church certainly was around in 33 A.D.---it simply wasn't yet commonly referred to by that name.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Try to follow. The Catholic Church certainly was around in 33 A.D.---it simply wasn't yet commonly referred to by that name.

It looks like I am not the only person that read the New Testament and found out that the Catholic Church is not the one established by the teachings of Jesus and His disciples.

Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately A.D. 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

Maybe your should actually read the New Testament and compare what it says with the Catholic Church's traditions.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal

It looks like I am not the only person that read the New Testament and found out that the Catholic Church is not the one established by the teachings of Jesus and His disciples.

Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately A.D. 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

QUESTION: If the above opinion is true, why did all Christians from the Early Church and Patristic Periods---roughly the 1st-8th centuries A.D.---believe, teach, and often die for such teachings as the primacy and authority of the papacy, Mary's Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity (even Protestant reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed and defended the latter), infant baptism, petitioning past saints for their prayers, apostolic and episcopal succession, the doctrine of indulgences, Tradition as the word of God (along with the Scriptures), the use of sacred images and objects in worship and devotion, the 73-book canon of Scripture, baptismal regeneration, verbal confession of sins to a priest, and many other distinctly "Catholic" doctrines?

Maybe your should actually read the New Testament and compare what it says with the Catholic Church's traditions.

QUESTION: Where in the New Testament are individual lay Christians ever permitted---let alone encouraged---to place their own theological preferences and opinions over the authoritative teachings of Christ's historic Church (Mt. 16:18; 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6)? (And don't even bother appealing to the Bereans, since they merely refute the Protestant approach.)

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

QUESTION: If the above opinion is true, why did all Christians from the Early Church and Patristic Periods---roughly the 1st-8th centuries A.D.---believe, teach, and often die for such teachings as the primacy and authority of the papacy, Mary's Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity (even Protestant reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed and defended the latter), infant baptism, petitioning past saints for their prayers, apostolic and episcopal succession, the doctrine of indulgences, Tradition as the word of God (along with the Scriptures), the use of sacred images and objects in worship and devotion, the 73-book canon of Scripture, baptismal regeneration, verbal confession of sins to a priest, and many other distinctly "Catholic" doctrines?

How can so many non-Biblical heresies abound in such an "infallible Church"?

Originally Posted by Cruciform

QUESTION: Where in the New Testament are individual lay Christians ever permitted---let alone encouraged---to place their own theological preferences and opinions over the authoritative teachings of Christ's historic Church

Romans 14:12, Mark 10:42-44, 2 Peter 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:10

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal

How can so many non-Biblical heresies abound in such an "infallible Church"?

You didn't answer the question. Try again?

Romans 14:12

Yes, and we'll be held accountable for whether we followed the authoritative teachings of Christ's own historic Church, or presumed to "replace" them with our own preferences and opinions (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

Mark 10:42-44

Has nothing to do with who should lead (apostles/bishops) and who should follow (laymen), but rather with the heart attitude of those who lead. Sorry, but this in no way allows you to deny or reject the authoritative teaching of Christ's historic Church.

2 Peter 3:16-17

Here St. Peter states that Paul's teaching is not easily or rightly understood by those who lack sound training in apostolic doctrine. Note that this is an observation by an apostle (a member of the Church's Magisterium) concerning the interpretations of laymen, who "twist" Paul's teachings "to their own destruction." It is an exhortation to follow the Church's teachings, not to replace them with one's own opinions. This text merely proves my point.

2 Corinthians 5:10

See my answer regarding Ro. 14:12 above.

1 Corinthians 3:10

This is a Magisterial statement by St. Paul. It has nothing to do with laymen imposing their own preferences and opinions upon the established doctrines of Christ's historic church.


Got any other biblical texts that supposedly justify individual laymen replacing the Church's authoritative teachings with their own theological preferences and opinions?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[genuineoriginal]

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Paul gave a warning against false apostles of Christ.

If you want to be held accountable for following the teachings of the Roman Catholic sect, then it is in your best interest to examine those teachings carefully to make sure that you are not being led astray by false apostles of Christ.

If you choose to accept their teachings without examining them, then you do so at our own peril.

Good luck.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal

Paul gave a warning against false apostles of Christ.

Yes. True apostles are Christ's chosen apostles and those men (bishops) ordained and appointed by those apostles through the laying on of hands. False apostles are laymen (who are not ordained by an apostle or bishop) who presume to promote their own doctrinal opinions in the place of the Church's authoritative teachings. Again, your text merely proves my point.

The specific false apostles that Paul speaks of here were Irsaelites who forged letters of recommendation for themselves, and who taught a gospel contrary to that taught by the apostles and bishops (Magisterium) of Christ's historic Church. They had not been ordained by the apostles, and thus were merely opinionated laymen.


So... What else you got?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

who taught a gospel contrary to that taught by the apostles and bishops (Magisterium) of Christ's historic Church.

You got nothing.
The bishops (Magisterium) of your false historic Church teach contrary to what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.

But you will never know that until you read the Bible for yourself instead of trusting them to do it for you.

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by genuineoriginal

The bishops (Magisterium) of your false historic Church teach contrary to what was taught by Jesus and the apostles.

Rather, you presume to "replace" the authoritative teachings of Christ's historic Church---the apostles and bishops (Magisterium)---with your own doctrinal preferences and opinions. Again, you won't find a single verse in the New Testament or the writings of the early Christian Church that permits such a thing.

But you will never know that until you read the Bible for yourself instead of trusting them to do it for you.

The simple fact is that NO ONE "reads the Bible for himself," including you. Like everyone else, you derive your ideas, assumptions, and beliefs from informational sources outside of yourself, and bring all of that to your interpretation of the Bible.

In light of this fact, it should be noted that while Catholics interpret the Bible in light of the ancient teaching Tradition of the historic Christian Church, you interpret the Bible according to your own chosen non-Catholic sectarian doctrinal tradition(s)---whether you're aware of having done so or not.

Thus, BOTH Catholics AND non-Catholics interpret the scriptures according to their particular tradition or traditions. It's simply unavoidable. Sorry for your confusion.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[Cruciform]

[bump for gen-o]

[Stuu]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Thus, BOTH Catholics AND non-Catholics interpret the scriptures according to their particular tradition or traditions. It's simply unavoidable. Sorry for your confusion.

So your claim of "authoritative" is just your opinion, based on the traditional interpretation of your church. There is nothing absolute about that, "authoritative" is just a word for the consumption of Catholics...the forced consumption.

Stuart

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by Stuu

So your claim of "authoritative" is just your opinion, based on the traditional interpretation of your church.

What is authoritative is the Church's formal teachings, not my opinion of those teachings.

(Welcome back, Stuu. How are things going for you this summer?)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[serpentdove]

The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church (Rev. 3:14–22). You live to please men. Christians are bondservants of Christ (Ga 1:10).

See:

Roman Catholicism

[The Church: What is it all About? Colossians 1:18,24 In Touch] "Church buildings are plentiful in our country. Locating one may be easy, but wisely deciding which to join involves more effort. God's Word gives us some specific instructions in this matter.

First, let's explore the original biblical meaning of the word "Church." The term ecclesia meant a group of people who are called out of the world's system by God's grace for the purpose of assembling to worship and serve Christ. Ephesians 5:29-30 further specifies that believers are the body and Jesus is the head of such a fellowship. Under His leadership, we can enjoy the unity and purpose that He intended.

God's design for this sacred gathering involves worship, instruction, encouragement, evangelism, and ministry to those in need, both within the fellowship and outside its walls. A healthy, vibrant congregation is possible only when members rely fully on the Holy Spirit's guidance. The work of the church is to be done in His power, in humble, prayerful submission to the Lord.

To help you determine whether a church is following the design laid out in Scripture, here are some important questions to ask: Do they believe God's Word is infallible and inerrant? Is the church disciplining her people? Does the fellowship have some kind of missionary or evangelistic program?

...Joining a congregation is an important decision, as a fellowship of believers is one tool God uses to mature and encourage His children. Those three questions can be helpful in discerning God's will. Listen for His Spirit to warn or direct as you prayerfully investigate your options."

[Cruciform]

Originally Posted by serpentdove

The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate church...

...or not.

You live to please men...

...or not.

Christians are bondservants of Christ.

Amen.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

[serpentdove]

Originally Posted by Cruciform

Amen.

Amen means we agree. We do not. We don't worship a false christ (2 Pe 2:1). We worship the true and living Lord (1 Pet. 2:4).

See:

No Eucharist
No Papal Authority

[The Church: God's Design Hebrews 10:23-25 In Touch] "When you hear the word "church," do you picture a little white building full of smiling people in fancy clothes? As lovely as that image may be, God's design for church is unrelated to it. He created the church to be a unified fellowship of believers who encourage each other and carry out His ministry to the world.

The Bible clearly defines the following as ministries of the church: worshipping the living God, instructing and edifying believers, making disciples of all nations, and serving the needy. Unless the leadership is careful, however, these purposes can all too easily get out of balance, with the unfortunate result that the body ends up malnourished. For example, a church with too heavy an emphasis on praise could become introverted. Congregations that over emphasize teaching might lose their joy, and those that evangelize to the neglect of the other areas could miss out on great faith.

Because of sin and human imperfection, we do not experience church as it was originally intended. Instead, there's a tendency to overstress certain ministry areas. What's more, divisive arguments--many of which concern minor issues, such as music preferences--too often destroy unity. Greed, pride, selfishness, and gossip can also tear a congregation apart...

...Since they're composed of imperfect people, churches will be imperfect too. Though expecting anything else leads to disappointment, we should nonetheless strive for God's original design, continually measuring ourselves against Scripture and correcting course to realign with His purpose."