PDA

View Full Version : john 14:6 and the Catholic Church



Gulah Papyrus
Apr 20th 2008, 07:39 PM
I am listening to the Pope's serman at Yankee Stadium that is based on John 14:6. Aside from the opening reading of 1-12, everytime the Pope quotes the verse he stops short of 'No one comes to the Father except through me'.

I have heard that the Vatican has made statements about uniting the worlds religions. First, is this true, have they made these statements? And if so, what do they say about the second, and more important part IMHO, of John 14:6?

I am not trying to pick on the Catholics, and I think that seeing scripture super-transposed on CNN can be nothing but good(Philippians 2:18) but do they believe that Muslims are saved?

Rullion Green
Apr 20th 2008, 08:44 PM
I am listening to the Pope's serman at Yankee Stadium that is based on John 14:6. Aside from the opening reading of 1-12, everytime the Pope quotes the verse he stops short of 'No one comes to the Father except through me'.

I have heard that the Vatican has made statements about uniting the worlds religions. First, is this true, have they made these statements? And if so, what do they say about the second, and more important part IMHO, of John 14:6?

I am not trying to pick on the Catholics, and I think that seeing scripture super-transposed on CNN can be nothing but good(Philippians 2:18) but do they believe that Muslims are saved?

As a former catholic i have learned more about the religon in a few months outside it than i did in 32 years as a catholic. I see it as a veil covering the true Jesus of the Bible but as far as your question goes i think i heard a quote from the pope saying to muslims that "we worship the same God" so i think they would say yes to your question :o.

Jerome1
Apr 20th 2008, 10:30 PM
I think a better question would be do they believe in the possibility of Muslims attaining salvation. To that I would say the answer is yes.

I havn't seen the sermon at Yankee Stadium yet, but if it was a Mass, then specific liturgical readings will be read out. The entire bible is read at Mass in a three year cycle.

Rullion Green
Apr 20th 2008, 11:21 PM
I think a better question would be do they believe in the possibility of Muslims attaining salvation. To that I would say the answer is yes.

There is a possibility for everyone to attain salvation no matter what creed or background, i agree. IF they repent and believe the Gospel of the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross for forgivness of sins.



This is the scandle the Apostle Paul was not ashamed of, there is only one way and that way is through Jesus and Jesus alone. This is why we cannot agree with other religons and have the philisophy of " you have your way, and i have mine and we will all meet up in heaven" seems harsh but there is an absolute truth, and that truth is Jesus and his finished work on the cross for remission of sins ! anyone outside Jesus is outside salvation.

I know a muslim person who is a good man in my book, but my book is worth nothing.
A muslim worshoping allah will die in his sins just as a jew or a hindu or any other that has not got his hope and faith placed in Jesus.

Roelof
Apr 21st 2008, 08:52 AM
Some very interesting articles:

From The Times (UK)
February 19, 2007

Churches back plan to unite under Pope

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.
The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece)



--------------------------------------


From The Times (UK)
July 11, 2007

If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians

Richard Owen and Ruth Gledhill

The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as“not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.
Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outlying the “defects” of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.
The document said that the Orthodox church suffered from a “wound” because it did not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound was “still more profound” in Protestant denominations, it added.

It was “difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them”, said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Roman Catholicism was “the one true Church of Christ”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece)

Teke
Apr 23rd 2008, 03:11 PM
Some very interesting articles:

From The Times (UK)
February 19, 2007

Churches back plan to unite under Pope

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.
The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1403702.ece)



--------------------------------------


From The Times (UK)
July 11, 2007

If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians

Richard Owen and Ruth Gledhill

The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as“not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.
Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outlying the “defects” of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.
The document said that the Orthodox church suffered from a “wound” because it did not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound was “still more profound” in Protestant denominations, it added.

It was “difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them”, said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Roman Catholicism was “the one true Church of Christ”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece)

An Orthodox response, "Orthodox refused and St. Mark of Ephesus uttered his famous “Better the fez of the Turks than the mitre of the Pope,”

The Voice of Orthodoxy (http://www.thevoiceoforthodoxy.com/current/editorials/Will_The_True_Church_Stand_up.html) (a response to the popes words of the above 2007 speech)

Athanasius
Apr 23rd 2008, 04:37 PM
I think a better question would be do they believe in the possibility of Muslims attaining salvation. To that I would say the answer is yes.

Sure, but then they wouldn't be calling themselves Muslim, would they?

Revinius
Apr 24th 2008, 05:51 AM
i am constantly surprised by how many people who call themselves Christian believe all paths (religions) lead to the same God.

Jerome1
Apr 24th 2008, 07:56 PM
i am constantly surprised by how many people who call themselves Christian believe all paths (religions) lead to the same God.

I believe culpability depends on ones knowledge.

Christ knowing the hearts and minds of all men/women will know how culpable each of us have been for are words and actions.

BlessedMan
Apr 25th 2008, 01:09 AM
As a church going Episcopalian I think that we have so much in common with Roman Catholics that we ought to split the difference and reunite. I think Catholics should let priests marry and maybe and Episcopals can give up women being priests. Let's call them priestesses instead.

As far as not using John 14:6, no one comes to the Father except through me. I am in favor of not emphasing the differences in religions or trying to Damn anyone who does accept Jesus's divinity.

Consider these verses from the sacred writings of Islam

Jesus is the author of creation (Sura #43, Zukhruf:63 )
Jesus ascended into heaven ( Sura #3, Al-i-Imram:55)
Jesus is coming again ( Sura #3, Al-i-Imram:45)

The healing of the rift between Christians and Moslems is possible in my opinion.

Revinius
Apr 25th 2008, 04:23 AM
I believe culpability depends on ones knowledge.

Christ knowing the hearts and minds of all men/women will know how culpable each of us have been for are words and actions.

And the level of teaching of ones church. Those i talk of generally emanate from liberal churches.

Jerome1
Apr 26th 2008, 03:56 PM
As a church going Episcopalian I think that we have so much in common with Roman Catholics that we ought to split the difference and reunite. I think Catholics should let priests marry and maybe and Episcopals can give up women being priests. Let's call them priestesses instead.



Catholics do let priests marry in the eastern rite, and there are many priests in the western rite who are married. I believe a lot of them are Lutheran and Anglican converts who were married before and wanted to enter the preisthood.

Women cannot be priests in the RCC.

Christ-4-D
Apr 29th 2008, 11:14 PM
All the catholics i know either went to a catholic school or were brought up catholics and none of them go to church of their own backs now that they are away from home.

Can anyone tell me one or two of the main flaws that protestants find in the catholic belief?

Roelof
Apr 30th 2008, 01:41 PM
i am constantly surprised by how many people who call themselves Christian believe all paths (religions) lead to the same God.

This is a New Age or Emerging Church view point.

David Taylor
Apr 30th 2008, 06:09 PM
The healing of the rift between Christians and Moslems is possible in my opinion.


The rift isn't between Muslims and Christians.

The rift is between Muslims and Christ Himself.

He welcomes them to come to Him for healing; but His price is steep.


Matt 10:38 "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."

Mark 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me"

John 8:42 "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. "

John 14:23 "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine"

DanDMan64
Apr 30th 2008, 07:04 PM
All the catholics i know either went to a catholic school or were brought up catholics and none of them go to church of their own backs now that they are away from home.

Can anyone tell me one or two of the main flaws that protestants find in the catholic belief?First-off, a little background. I was born into the RCC in my home country of Costa Rica, but my mom had the good sense to leave it when I was very young and started attending a Baptist congregation, where eventually I came to salvation through Christ at age 5,6, or 7, (I was too young to remember exactly.) In Latin America the RCC is very prevalent, and protestants make it a point to "convert" people away from the RCC for the following reasons.

1. Adoration of "Mary" the mother of Christ, who has been "deified" to the point where she is considered a part of the Godhead, and is considered to be a virgin still, contrary to what the gospels teach about her.

2. Adoration of "saints", beyond thinking of them as just intercessors, a lot of people in Latin America actually worship statues of Mary or specific saints above Christ or The Father almost exclusively. (Idolatry).

3. Salvation by being born into the RCC. In Latin America, Catholics are taught that by belonging to "The Church" through infant baptism, they are assured entrance into heaven.

4. Salvation after death through "purgatory", if the family pays for enough masses the soul of a loved one can be quickly moved-out of purgatory and up into heaven, even if their life was worthy of nothing but hell.

5. Forgiveness of sins by sinful men, priests have the right to listen to your sins and the power to "forgive you" for them through penances and prayers.

6. Priests and Nuns are forced to a life of celibacy, regardless of whether they have the gift or the capacity to be celibate. (Which is why they have so many problems with "pedophilia" and other sexual perversion among the clergy, as has come to surface in recent years, but has been going on for ages.)

7. Indulgences (which I'm not sure they sell any more) but at one time they basically gave people permission to "sin" for a price.

These are just a few of the ones I can think of, but I'm sure others here can probably bring-up a few more. :cool:

Jerome1
Apr 30th 2008, 10:49 PM
1. Adoration of "Mary" the mother of Christ, who has been "deified" to the point where she is considered a part of the Godhead, and is considered to be a virgin still, contrary to what the gospels teach about her.



Mary hasn't been deified, and most of the early reformers including Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.


2. Adoration of "saints", beyond thinking of them as just intercessors, a lot of people in Latin America actually worship statues of Mary or specific saints above Christ or The Father almost exclusively. (Idolatry).

I don't know of any Catholics who think that saints are more than intercessors. The Catholic Catechism states that ,"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant".



3. Salvation by being born into the RCC. In Latin America, Catholics are taught that by belonging to "The Church" through infant baptism, they are assured entrance into heaven.


The Catholic Church doesn't teach this either. Infant baptism doesn't guarantee everyone entry in to heaven.


4. Salvation after death through "purgatory", if the family pays for enough masses the soul of a loved one can be quickly moved-out of purgatory and up into heaven, even if their life was worthy of nothing but hell.


God decides whos life is worthy of hell, the Catholic Church teaches that purgatory is a place of purification before one is able to enter heaven.

Habakkuk1:13 Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing; why do you look on the treacherous and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?

Revelation21:27 But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.


5. Forgiveness of sins by sinful men, priests have the right to listen to your sins and the power to "forgive you" for them through penances and prayers.

Were the disciples not sinful men? Christ gave them the authority to forgive sins.

John20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


6. Priests and Nuns are forced to a life of celibacy, regardless of whether they have the gift or the capacity to be celibate. (Which is why they have so many problems with "pedophilia" and other sexual perversion among the clergy, as has come to surface in recent years, but has been going on for ages.)

No they're not priests in the eastern rite are free to marry, and many priests in the western rite are also married. The clergy has no more a problem with pedophilia in terms of percentages than any other professional professions such as doctors, pastors of other religions and teachers, etc etc.....


7. Indulgences (which I'm not sure they sell any more) but at one time they basically gave people permission to "sin" for a price.

I believe financial transactions for indulgences were stopped due to prior abuses during the Council of Trent in 1545.

Br. Barnabas
May 1st 2008, 03:30 AM
I would also like to point out that pedophilia and other sexual perversions like it usually have nothing to do with the act of sex. It has very little to nothing to do with not having sex.

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 03:33 AM
This is a New Age or Emerging Church view point.

The emerging (emergent) church, I'll point out, and please don't think I'm picking on a certain church, is simply another name for traditional Catholicism (especially where Mysticism is concerned). It is a hearkening back to the Catholicism of the middle centuries with a postmodern lean.

**Purgatory, by the way, makes Christs sacrifice to be not enough.

Roelof
May 1st 2008, 04:44 AM
The rift is between Muslims and Christ Himself.



David

Very true words !!

Teke
May 1st 2008, 12:59 PM
The emerging (emergent) church, I'll point out, and please don't think I'm picking on a certain church, is simply another name for traditional Catholicism (especially where Mysticism is concerned). It is a hearkening back to the Catholicism of the middle centuries with a postmodern lean.




This is so far from the truth. But then it is the sort of confused thinking that western Christianity has in general. A stereotype projected by the world.

I don't feel like your picking on anyone in particular really, just the church in general. And I'm not a Roman Catholic.

I wouldn't call what your implying the "emergent church" but the "militant church". And Rome has taught the west well in that, even if they aren't calling themselves "C"atholic. The militant legalism of western Christianity was suffocating my soul, so I went east.

But I am a pacifist with no agenda for Christ's church. I'm also what one would term a mystic, in that I don't feel the need to explain everything systematically or scientifically, because the Church will always be mystic in that God works in mysterious ways. :)

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 01:12 PM
This is so far from the truth. But then it is the sort of confused thinking that western Christianity has in general. A stereotype projected by the world.

I don't feel like your picking on anyone in particular really, just the church in general. And I'm not a Roman Catholic.

I wouldn't call what your implying the "emergent church" but the "militant church". And Rome has taught the west well in that, even if they aren't calling themselves "C"atholic. The militant legalism of western Christianity was suffocating my soul, so I went east.

But I am a pacifist with no agenda for Christ's church. I'm also what one would term a mystic, in that I don't feel the need to explain everything systematically or scientifically, because the Church will always be mystic in that God works in mysterious ways. :)

I'm picking on the church in general because I called the emergent church exactly what it was; a return to the mystical form of Catholicism of centuries past (with a postmodern lean)? That's not an implication, by the way, that's an absolute assertion.

Is it the word mystical that's throwing you off? Otherwise I'll take the legalism of the 'west' if it avoids the attitude of condescension the 'east' carries with it. I don't have time to answer all the implications of your post, of which my original post had nothing to do with.

What I will say is that I never said the church needed to explain things systematically or scientifically, so I don't see what this would have to do with anything.

Revinius
May 1st 2008, 01:38 PM
I'm also what one would term a mystic, in that I don't feel the need to explain everything systematically or scientifically, because the Church will always be mystic in that God works in mysterious ways. :)

I think he works quite obviously, we are just too worked up in ourselves that we miss it. Hindsight being 20/20 i look back and see so many occasions in which God has directly interceded in my life.

Teke
May 1st 2008, 02:04 PM
I'm picking on the church in general because I called the emergent church exactly what it was; a return to the mystical form of Catholicism of centuries past (with a postmodern lean)? That's not an implication, by the way, that's an absolute assertion.

Is it the word mystical that's throwing you off? Otherwise I'll take the legalism of the 'west' if it avoids the attitude of condescension the 'east' carries with it. I don't have time to answer all the implications of your post, of which my original post had nothing to do with.

What I will say is that I never said the church needed to explain things systematically or scientifically, so I don't see what this would have to do with anything.

Then explain what you mean by "emergent". As I'm seeing it systematically.
And how does the east carry "condescension"?

Teke
May 1st 2008, 02:08 PM
I think he works quite obviously, we are just too worked up in ourselves that we miss it. Hindsight being 20/20 i look back and see so many occasions in which God has directly interceded in my life.

If He were so obvious to us, then why the need for any revelation from Him.:hmm:

Revinius
May 1st 2008, 02:26 PM
If He were so obvious to us, then why the need for any revelation from Him.:hmm:

Well we wouldnt notice in hindsight at all unless we had revelation. Look at the Israelites exiting Egypt (what a bunch of whiners) and the Disciples of Jesus (they just didnt get it time and again). The only reason we get it is because he is inside us revealing things to us. But that doesnt mean what he does isnt plainly obvious. We discount so much each day that we dont notice what he is and what he has done until we look back on the changes within ourselves and those around us.

Jerome1
May 1st 2008, 02:45 PM
The emerging (emergent) church, I'll point out, and please don't think I'm picking on a certain church, is simply another name for traditional Catholicism (especially where Mysticism is concerned). It is a hearkening back to the Catholicism of the middle centuries with a postmodern lean.

**Purgatory, by the way, makes Christs sacrifice to be not enough.

Christs sacrafice is enough, everyone in purgatory goes to heaven. It is a place of purifcation before we can enter the heavenly realm.

Revinius
May 1st 2008, 03:53 PM
But then isnt purgatory uneeded? We cant enter Heaven by our own power, only by Christs, so why bother with it at all. If its not in the Word then why have it?

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 03:57 PM
Then explain what you mean by "emergent". As I'm seeing it systematically.
And how does the east carry "condescension"?

The Emergent Church. . . The new form of liberalism, highly influenced by the post modern train of thought. We can't know truth, and even if absolute truth existed we wouldn't know it. Scripture is mysterious and needs to be constantly reinterpreted. We are confined by linguistic constructs and as such, we need to define God anthropomorphically--God is known, yet unknown. We should do away with doctrines, we should do away with absolute truths, we should do away with absolutes.

That's 'emergent'.

And I apologize if I got too heated in my last response, I have a cold that's been messing with me (though not to blame the cold, I let it get to me).

DanDMan64
May 1st 2008, 05:52 PM
I would also like to point out that pedophilia and other sexual perversions like it usually have nothing to do with the act of sex. It has very little to nothing to do with not having sex.I'm sorry, but I beg to differ on both counts.

Fist-off Jesus taught that having impure sexual thoughts in your heart (head) is paramount to doing the actual acts in a physical sense: "27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "
From this teaching we can conclude that "fantasization" of a sexual act in one's mind is just as bad in the eyes of God, as the commission of the actual act.

As for it having nothing to do with not having sex, is like saying that you could lock someone-up in a cell and not give them any food, and their eventual pounding on the door and begging for food has nothing to do with them being hungry. Like it or not, to most humans wanting to have sex is like wanting to eat, it's a necessity of life, and in some rare cases God has granted some individuals "the gift of celibacy" which means they can do with-out it. But taking men and women who have not been blessed with this gift and depriving them of sex by force, it's bound to make them resort to wanting to fulfill that human desire for intimacy sometime, specially when they're constantly engaged in it in their hearts/minds, which in many cases has resulted in the sexual abuse of the innocent who can not defend themselves or speak-up for themselves, specially when the abuser is a representative of God, and tells them it's OK. :cry:

Revinius
May 1st 2008, 05:55 PM
liberalism/pluralism is one of the great evils affecting churches today, then again marking something as great in a bag full of great evils is a little moot.:hmm:

In any case, when one is fighting on the front line many wolves in sheeps clothing will try to slip past the picket lines and into our midst. Some churches fall due to such things, others rise as fighting brings out the faith in those who stand for the one true thing we know and love - Christ Jesus - and only Christ Jesus.

Jerome1
May 1st 2008, 06:48 PM
But then isnt purgatory uneeded? We cant enter Heaven by our own power, only by Christs, so why bother with it at all. If its not in the Word then why have it?

I just quoted two verses from scripture above that support the doctrine.

Purgatory is meant to be a place of purging(hence the name) to rid us of anything unclean and impure before we can enter the heavenly realm.

DanDMan64
May 1st 2008, 07:45 PM
Mary hasn't been deified, and most of the early reformers including Martin Luther and John Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "The Church" teach that Mary didn't die, but she also ascended into heaven just as Jesus did, and from there she intercedes for mankind? and on occasion she pop's-up here and there (Guadalupe, Fatima) and gives new revelations to people? As to what Calvin or Luther or millions of others believe, if it's not in the scriptures I can't accept it, and in the gospels often times it talks about Jesus' siblings, born to Mary and Joseph through natural means, so how can a woman have children in a natural sense and remain a virgin?

I don't know of any Catholics who think that saints are more than intercessors. The Catholic Catechism states that ,"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant".Well, what Catechism states and what people do out of ignorance are often not the same things, and if priests don't do anything to correct their flocks but rather encourage them, how will they know to act any different?

I don't know if you watch any "Spanish soap operas" but they often show people praying to statues of Mary and saints for miracles, even priests (or actors in the role of a priest) doing this, so it makes me wonder, where did the writers of these "novelas" get that idea? :hmm:


The Catholic Church doesn't teach this either. Infant baptism doesn't guarantee everyone entry in to heaven.They might not teach it, but they sure seem to believe it. I have been to some masses in my lifetime, and I've never heard a priest give an "altar call", or asked people to repent from their sins once and for all and stop going to confessions. It would seem just being "Catholic" and following all their doctrines is enough to please God, and even if you fail at that there's till the "last rites", and even if you miss that you still have "purgatory" so is there any way a Catholic can not be saved, aside from walking away from The Church and becoming a Protestant? :lol:

God decides whos life is worthy of hell, the Catholic Church teaches that purgatory is a place of purification before one is able to enter heaven.

Habakkuk1:13 Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing; why do you look on the treacherous and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?

Revelation21:27 But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.The verses you quoted here do show that holiness needs to be attained before entering into heaven, which I will not dare contest because I'm in full agreement with that, however they do not show the need for "purgatory", and without resorting to the apocryphal books, there's no where in scripture where you find that anything other than the atoning and purifying blood of Christ, is necessary to accomplish that purification of the soul, along with a life that allows for that purifying process to be on-going, but during this lifetime only.


Were the disciples not sinful men? Christ gave them the authority to forgive sins.

John20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."These words were not spoken to the disciples in general but to 10 of the Apostles, who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations, and by presenting the gospel to men they would give men the opportunity to accept Christ's sacrifice on The Cross as the ultimate sacrifice that would be needed to attain God's forgiveness for their sins. However who ever rejects the gospel remains in his/her sins and no man can ever take over the authority of God to forgive them.

To say that Jesus meant in this verse to transfer the authority to forgive sins to the Apostles, is to say that His Sacrifice on the Cross was in vain, which is just plain heresy. All He was saying was that by the power of the Holy Spirit they were given the authority to convincingly present the Gospel as if God himself was telling it to the hearers, and doing that through them (the Apostles), but the authority to actually forgive sins remains with God.


No they're not priests in the eastern rite are free to marry, and many priests in the western rite are also married. The clergy has no more a problem with pedophilia in terms of percentages than any other professional professions such as doctors, pastors of other religions and teachers, etc etc.....Well is good that they're recognizing that perhaps it's better to let men with a natural drive to procreate to do so, now that they realized how wrong it was to stifle that drive in the first place, but unlike doctors, pastors and teachers, society has for ages held priests at a higher standard than most other men, mainly because they were thought of as "holy men" much in the same level Jesus was, as free from the common passions that burden most men, and therefore they were entrusted with the care and education of children, and were not expected to ever have to be held accountable for violating that trust, and even today is sad to see how the Bishops and Cardinals are not willing to fully admit that perhaps that "trust" was misplaced.:cry:


I believe financial transactions for indulgences were stopped due to prior abuses during the Council of Trent in 1545.I don't know about that, my point is that such a thing was even permitted in the first place, as if there was any biblical doctrine that supported it, is one more of the flaws that we "Protestants" find with the Catholic Church, and by that I mean the leadership in general, not individuals in particular.:B

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 07:53 PM
I just quoted two verses from scripture above that support the doctrine.

Purgatory is meant to be a place of purging(hence the name) to rid us of anything unclean and impure before we can enter the heavenly realm.

You mean these?

Habakkuk1:13 Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing; why do you look on the treacherous and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?

Revelation21:27 But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Christs sacrifice takes care of that 'cleansing'--no need for purgatory.

Teke
May 1st 2008, 09:31 PM
The Emergent Church. . . The new form of liberalism, highly influenced by the post modern train of thought. We can't know truth, and even if absolute truth existed we wouldn't know it. Scripture is mysterious and needs to be constantly reinterpreted. We are confined by linguistic constructs and as such, we need to define God anthropomorphically--God is known, yet unknown. We should do away with doctrines, we should do away with absolute truths, we should do away with absolutes.

That's 'emergent'.

And I apologize if I got too heated in my last response, I have a cold that's been messing with me (though not to blame the cold, I let it get to me).

OK, I see you mean literally "The Emergent Church" (a literal church group). I'd agree it is a disturbing movement. There are many evangelicals I know who admire Barth (a leader in this groups forming philosophy of theology) and his teachings.

Is this "emergent church" term a new way of saying "neo-orthodoxy".
Or "ecumenical church of deceit".

Perhaps this is why Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" disturbed me so when I first read about it. More fuel for that fire.

Hope you feel better soon.:hug:

Athanasius
May 1st 2008, 09:49 PM
OK, I see you mean literally "The Emergent Church" (a literal church group). I'd agree it is a disturbing movement. There are many evangelicals I know who admire Barth (a leader in this groups forming philosophy of theology) and his teachings.

Is this "emergent church" term a new way of saying "neo-orthodoxy".
Or "ecumenical church of deceit".

Perhaps this is why Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" disturbed me so when I first read about it. More fuel for that fire.

Hope you feel better soon.:hug:

Yeah, it's an actual church group (Bell, Jones, Barth, Mclaren, to name a few). You'll be interested to learn that Rick Warren, in the foreword to a book (Emerging Churches) espousing this form of liberalism, proclaimed that the emergent church is how he envisions the 'ideal' purpose driven church.

It's definitely disturbing. . . .
And really I feel horrid for snapping at you ;( Thanks though ^^

Teke
May 2nd 2008, 05:16 PM
Getting back to the OP. The Roman patriarchate has shown that they can incorporate any Christian group into their patriarchate. They do so by accommodating them with their own set of canons. ie. Byzantine Catholics
Like the Emergent Church, this is an ecumenism of deceit, and why the eastern churches have fought against such belief as this (though some gave in and are known as Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves with the Roman patriarchate, but this is more a financial issue of support than an agreement of doctrine and praxis).

While there will always be ethnic differences within the churches of Christ, the simple message of Christ should remain the same as should His Church. Meaning the same teachings Jesus and Apostles taught should be taught to all, irregardless of ethnic difference. And I believe this is done, we just don't recognize it because the branches each focus on separate issues that are important to them. Who are we to say that issues which are important to one group are insignificant to another.

Am I being confusing....:D
Let me put it from my perspective. These are just examples, not a critique of the churches to be taken in a derogatory manner. The Pentecostals seek a mystical experience, which is fine and good. The Protestants seek to edify soteriolgy, and this is fine as well. The Evangelicals seek to evangelize, and this is good also. The Eastern Orthodox are all about right worship, meaning being orderly in teaching and worship, and being faithful to the original teachings. Can they all learn from one another, and should they, absolutely.
Do we need the pope to straighten it all out for us, no we don't. Long as we are on a straight path for Christ, He will guide us.:)

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 07:22 PM
Getting back to the OP. The Roman patriarchate has shown that they can incorporate any Christian group into their patriarchate. They do so by accommodating them with their own set of canons. ie. Byzantine Catholics
Like the Emergent Church, this is an ecumenism of deceit, and why the eastern churches have fought against such belief as this (though some gave in and are known as Byzantine Catholics identifying themselves with the Roman patriarchate, but this is more a financial issue of support than an agreement of doctrine and praxis).

While there will always be ethnic differences within the churches of Christ, the simple message of Christ should remain the same as should His Church. Meaning the same teachings Jesus and Apostles taught should be taught to all, irregardless of ethnic difference. And I believe this is done, we just don't recognize it because the branches each focus on separate issues that are important to them. Who are we to say that issues which are important to one group are insignificant to another.

Am I being confusing....:D
Let me put it from my perspective. These are just examples, not a critique of the churches to be taken in a derogatory manner. The Pentecostals seek a mystical experience, which is fine and good. The Protestants seek to edify soteriolgy, and this is fine as well. The Evangelicals seek to evangelize, and this is good also. The Eastern Orthodox are all about right worship, meaning being orderly in teaching and worship, and being faithful to the original teachings. Can they all learn from one another, and should they, absolutely.
Do we need the pope to straighten it all out for us, no we don't. Long as we are on a straight path for Christ, He will guide us.:)

Within that there needs to be a consistency with the Word. If there isnt then whatever you choose to call yourself is somewhat irrelevant.

Teke
May 2nd 2008, 07:48 PM
Within that there needs to be a consistency with the Word. If there isnt then whatever you choose to call yourself is somewhat irrelevant.

Hopefully all Christians know that the bible is canon, meaning rule, law, guide etc.
And actually it is more a matter of making scripture consistent with Christ, not ourselves. This is also how we usually identify a heretical group from the real thing. Not by scripture, because anyone can make it say what they want, but by Christ who is THE revelation to the Church. We teach and preach Christ, not scripture, although we use scripture to do so. As without Christ scripture means nothing.

The first councils of the church established a guideline to do this by in Trinity theology.

Revinius
May 3rd 2008, 03:10 AM
Hopefully all Christians know that the bible is canon, meaning rule, law, guide etc.
And actually it is more a matter of making scripture consistent with Christ, not ourselves. This is also how we usually identify a heretical group from the real thing. Not by scripture, because anyone can make it say what they want, but by Christ who is THE revelation to the Church. We teach and preach Christ, not scripture, although we use scripture to do so. As without Christ scripture means nothing.

The first councils of the church established a guideline to do this by in Trinity theology.

Indeed, but if what a church group does contradicts the Word, then there is no parity. For instance you cant change the command, 'thou shalt not steal' to 'thou shalt not steal unless its music from the internet'.

Athanasius
May 3rd 2008, 03:14 AM
The command is not 'thou shall not steal'. The command is 'thou shall not do what one feels is wrong, and if one feels that something isn't wrong, then it isn't'.

Revinius
May 3rd 2008, 02:54 PM
The command is not 'thou shall not steal'. The command is 'thou shall not do what one feels is wrong, and if one feels that something isn't wrong, then it isn't'.

LOL, i know the exact churches :hmm:.

Jerome1
May 3rd 2008, 02:56 PM
Hopefully all Christians know that the bible is canon, meaning rule, law, guide etc.
And actually it is more a matter of making scripture consistent with Christ, not ourselves. This is also how we usually identify a heretical group from the real thing. Not by scripture, because anyone can make it say what they want, but by Christ who is THE revelation to the Church. We teach and preach Christ, not scripture, although we use scripture to do so. As without Christ scripture means nothing.

The first councils of the church established a guideline to do this by in Trinity theology.

The Orthodox, RC and protestant bibles all differ from one another which one is right?

Teke
May 3rd 2008, 03:42 PM
The Orthodox, RC and protestant bibles all differ from one another which one is right?

Right? not sure what you mean. Scripture is part of church tradition. None you mentioned use all of scripture, that is, formally.

Scripture is given to the faithful to aid them with the Holy Spirit in guiding them, not to out rank one another.

Orthodox use the Sept. version of the OT and have more books of scripture than the RC or Protestant. On an Orthodox altar there is only the 4 gospels, that is what is essential to the Church. We read other scripture along with that. But even in Orthodoxy, not all of scripture is used by all the churches. However it is there for them alongside the 4 gospels.

Orthodox believe scripture is for everyone, and there is no minimum or maximum on that. Orthodox have always made sure the faithful had scripture, even if they have no written language. Russia's language came in this manner. When the first missionaries came to North America, the Aleut's had no written language. The missionaries made them one to have the scriptures in their own language. That is a couple of examples.

There is a great deal of ancient Christian information that hasn't been translated. Orthodox have always labored in this field.

Jerome1
May 3rd 2008, 08:45 PM
Right? not sure what you mean. Scripture is part of church tradition. None you mentioned use all of scripture, that is, formally.



You said.



Hopefully all Christians know that the bible is canon, meaning rule, law, guide etc.


Is the only difference between the RC and Orthodox canon the addition of third and fourth Maccabees?


Not by scripture, because anyone can make it say what they want, but by Christ who is THE revelation to the Church. We teach and preach Christ, not scripture, although we use scripture to do so. As without Christ scripture means nothing.

The first councils of the church established a guideline to do this by in Trinity theology.

So you believe Gods revelations to the church stopped after the seventh ecumenical council(Some Orthodox include fourth and fifth Councils of Constantinople)?

Teke
May 5th 2008, 01:17 PM
Is the only difference between the RC and Orthodox canon the addition of third and fourth Maccabees?

We have 3 Maccabees. Your Nehemiah is in your 2 Esdras, ours is separate. Orthodox have 151 Psalms, one more than RC or Protestant. Orthodox have the Epistle of Jeremiah separate, but I believe you may have that in Baruch. 2 Paraleipomenon (2 Chronicles) includes the Prayer of Manasseh, and Daniel includes Susanna, Bel and the Serpent, and Hymn of the Three Young Men.


So you believe Gods revelations to the church stopped after the seventh ecumenical council(Some Orthodox include fourth and fifth Councils of Constantinople)?

The revelation of Jesus Christ can't be stopped. The churches exploration of that revelation has always been conciliar, and there have been no ecumenical councils since the seventh. So, yeah, I suppose you could say with the schism occurring in the church, there hasn't been any conciliar exploration of that revelation thus far. Maybe God decided to leave it like it is for now.

Some Orthodox don't accept all seven councils, some only accept up to the 4th council. But the majority accept the first seven.

Orthodox don't see what is known as "progressive revelation", meaning a new revelation of the same thing. Older is better than newer. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and unto ages of ages. He never changes and neither does the church, not for anything, whether Christians accept that or not.

Jerome1
May 5th 2008, 08:49 PM
Orthodox don't see what is known as "progressive revelation", meaning a new revelation of the same thing. Older is better than newer. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and unto ages of ages. He never changes and neither does the church, not for anything, whether Christians accept that or not.


I wouldn't agree with the term, "new revelation," because the truth is the truth whether it has been devinely revealed or not.

I do believe however that revelation can be expounded upon, or that we can gain a better understanding of it through counciliar or ecumenical councils.

Isn't that what the first seven ecumenical councils did?

Teke
May 6th 2008, 02:24 PM
I wouldn't agree with the term, "new revelation," because the truth is the truth whether it has been devinely revealed or not.

I do believe however that revelation can be expounded upon, or that we can gain a better understanding of it through counciliar or ecumenical councils.

Isn't that what the first seven ecumenical councils did?

Yes, it is. :) :)