Featured The Catholic Church

I am answering this a second time to point out the severity and unethical nature of this post.

1. You said, your aunt was a Baptist missionary who became a Catholic, and gave reasons why.
2. You told how you were baptist and became a Catholic.
3. You, in essence, were inviting milby to become a Catholic.

This is proselytizing.
This one post is enough to ban you. It is strictly against the rules. People have been banned for less than this. This is so blatant, it is outrageous.

You can defend a position; you cannot proselytize.

 

I understand, DHK. I will not mention another Catholic publication. I don't believe I have propagated any Catholic publications, at least it was not my intention. I mentioned a book I read a while back. I'm not inviting anyone to become Catholic. It is not my intention to proselytize. I have NOT become Catholic, yet.

I will respect your request, I really wasn't aware I was breaking any rules and if I have, I apologize.

 

One of the most egregious heresies of the Roman Catholic Communion is the doctrine that tradition and the teaching magisterium supersede Scripture. What this means is that Roman Catholicism is predominantly a man made religion. Scripture tells us: There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. [Proverbs 14:12]

 

Nice list there, and surely all these are errors. But with regard to your plea for people to come out of the RCC, I would hope they wouldn't come out and then go into Calvinism because they would merely be replacing one long list of errors with another.

 

Well, that's okay then; I don't mind. :laugh:

 

If you want to be catholic, join the first catholics -- the Eastern Orthodox Church. They were not corrupted with later Roman innovations.

 

Didn't you ask about information on the 'Convergence Movement'? The Three Streams'? I've been reading that the churches that embrace this, primarily The Evangelical Episcopal Churches, obtained their Apostolic Succession by way of Antiochian Orthodox Church. I seem to remember you weren't big on Apostolic Succession, but for those who believe it is valid and important, it looks like the EOC has lines that can be easily traced throughout their history.

 

I haven't found anything written that says 'that tradition and the teaching of the magisterium supersede scripture.' I have found writings that state that no teaching/Tradition can be in conflict with scripture. You may claim that in actuality that is the case and they would say it can't happen. Anyway, that is my understanding of what the Church teaches.

Paul seems to show the importance of Tradition in these passages. 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). Paul encourage people to follow Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

 

My communion, the CAC, has Antiochian lines of succession. I put more stock in those than some others.

But I still hold that monarchical bishops can be traced only to the late second century.

Our views of apostolic succession are clearly stated on our website.

I'm not going to castigate someone over their views on this doctrine; I understand why many view it as very important, while many do not. We try to make room for both sides.

 

Interesting. But to add to this, there are those who claim and make a good case that the RCC as we know it today didn't come into existence until Trent, where the errors and denial of the Gospel became official doctrines of the church.

 

So, you believe that James and Paul contradicted each other and the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion? Sounds like you deny the inspiration of the scriptures.

Second, you are not taking James at face value because he explicitly states he is talking about justification by faith from a post-confession "if a brother or sister be....AND ONE OF YOU.....though a man may say" and a post-regeneration/conversion view point "shew me......shew you." The person he is describing is already a self-professed and recognized "brother."

In direct contrast in Romans 3:24-5:2 Paul is speaking from a strictly theological perspective and does not talk about a post-conversion view until Romans 6-8.

I know this takes away your sugar stick but you have to simply be dishonest with the context to claim that James is describing the time concurrent with the act of justification. He is not! He is speaking of the post-profession impact upon the Christian community.

 

(See bolded part): Well, here we go again, but I'm not going to even get into that with you.

I am simply saying that what James said in Chapter 2, verse 24, is clear: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."

I have stated my position on this, which I believe to be a mediating position between that of Luther and the RCC. I think you and I are not too far apart on it, with me being closer to groups like the Quakers, EOC, some Anabaptists, and Arminians than you would be.

 

"As we know it" may be the key phrase in your statement. The RCC since its inception has continued to be in a state of change. During Trent they formally ratified some basic heresies like the denial of justification of faith alone, or sola fide. It was not until then that they officially accepted the Apocryphal books as inspired books into the canon. Thus before that time, no one considered these spurious books as canonical or as Scripture.

But the RCC from the fourth century onward was built on a foundation of heresy, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and transubstantiation, notwithstanding.

 

The union of church and state was a disastrous blow for Christendom. This began or accelerated an influx of paganism into the church, and the persecuted would become the persecutors.

 

As a matter of fact we can. As far as the reformation no Catholic will judge what God chose to do with the original reformers though I personally believe that there is some responsibility on their behalf. However, there were serious issues with the Catholic Church at that time and there were many reformers of the Catholic Church other than Luther, and Calvin. Many reformers never left the Catholic Church such as John of the Cross, Francis de Sales, Teresa of Avila, Philip Neri, Francis of Assisi, and many others. Certainly, it was a turbulent time in European history at that point.

Just as a side note and I find interesting. Many of the reformers were split among the natural European divide of North and South European countries. Much like today. Luther in Germany, Calvin in France and later Switzerland. Etc. There certainly were cultural aspects to it as well. And if you look today and see the mess the Euro is in we see the divide split among the same line. Interesting.

 

What you do not recognize and accept is that your pick and choose quotation from James is pre-qualified by his introduction which denies he is speaking of a person in the process of believing in Christ but is speaking of "ONE OF YOU" or one who has already professed the COMPLETION of initial conversion and already PROFESSING to have believed. That is precisely why James already dealt with regeneration in chapter one (Jm. 1:18) and introduces the church service in chapter 2:1-8 thus dealing with "ONE OF YOU" that is already a verfied member of the congregation. Thus the kind of person James is dealing with is one not merely one who has professed justified by faith but claims to be regenerated as well and it is this COMBINATION in ONE PERSON that is being challenged by James as "ONE OF YOU." This means by context James is dealing with a professed baptized believing church member in the same category as Paul in Romans 6-8.

Hence, the issue is the ACCOMPANIMENT of "good works" with the PROFESSION of "ONE OF YOU" that claims justification by faith. Paul agrees with James that there is no such human being justified by faith that is not also regenerated by the Spirit of the living God and thus in regard to "ONE OF YOU" in that POST-profession condition where there is no "good works" there is no reason to believe SPIRITUAL LIFE exists as "good works" is inseparable from Spiritual life as it is the direct product of regeneration - "saved THROUGH FAITH.....not of works, lest any man should boast for we are HIS WORKmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" - Eph. 2:8,9,10

In Epheisans 2:1-10 the term "saved" and "created in Christ Jesus" are synonyms of "quickened" as verse 5 proves where it combines "quickened" and "saved" together to define "you hath HE quickened" demonstrating this is the act of God or "HIS WORKMANSHIP created in Christ Jesus."

There is no possible way to exegetically deny that the kind or class of individual James is directly referring to is a POST-regenerated, POST-conversion kind of person and thus "good works" in that kind of person is INSEPARABLE with their profession of justification by faith. But the greater Biblical context demands that "good works" have their origin not in justification but in regeneration or in the new nature, new creation which is created in true holiness and righteousness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) but inseparably combined with justification by faith in this kind of person which is "ONE OF YOU" who already has made the PROFESSION of faith.

 

Next tell me how anything you said is different from what I believe, which I thought I had already explained in several places.

I think James makes it clear that works play a part in justification and salvation, not as the RCC believes, but different from what Luther, and others, believed also.

Although, as I said earlier, to be fair to Luther, he said that he believed in justification by faith alone, but that faith was never alone. That's pretty good, I think.

Anyway, my view puts me out of the RCC camp, but also the Lutheran and Calvinist camp.

 

Ok, since you asked, I will further explain why.

The mistake you are making here is the words "play a part IN justification." James does not teach or say that. They do play a part WITH justification but not "IN" justification. They are an accessory to justification but not "IN" justification. Where there is justification by faith there are works or there is no justification by faith because where there is justification by faith there is regeneration or being "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works."

James makes it very clear he is talking about a POST-PROFESSION type of person who is recognized as "ONE OF YOU" or ONE OF THOSE in James 2:1-9 - a baptized church member or ONE OF THOSE in James 1:18 recognized by that church BEFORE accepting them as a member already professing to have been REGENERATED. By context this kind of person is one the church recognizes as "ONE OF YOU" or by profession a regenerated believer who claims justification by faith.

Not really! Not as long as you choose to define your position that "works" are "IN" justification as that is the same camp as the RCC.

 

Milby…the Reformation saw no new revelation…the Roman Catholic Church was abusing her power and Luther wanted nothing more than to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within…The remaining 4 patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria) all had to deal with a zealous bishop of the patriarchate of Rome in 1054, when eventually Rome excommunicated herself from the others…It didn’t surprise the other bishops that Rome would experience the schism it did in the 1500s…

Regarding Peter and the Roman Church…Rome became known as the “Roman Catholic” Church only after the 1054 Schism…the remaining patriarchates became known as the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Each of the 5 patriarchates were established by an Apostle and they elected the bishop…in the case of Rome…Both St. Paul and St. Peter spent time in Rome and set up Churches…St. Paul elected St. Linus as Rome’s first Bishop…

There was no “pope” as we know it today…there was no pope in Rome speaking “ex cathedral” on matters regarding dogmatic teachings of faith and morals…if so where was the pope during the early ecumenical councils, speaking “ex cathedral”?

 

Are you suggesting that the bishop of Rome never excersised authority over the churches in the east before 1054? Common, I expect better of you. Ex Cathedra only means "from the Chair" and its a Latin term. For most of the early Church period the language used was primarily greek thus such an expression would not have been used. But can we see authority exercised? Even Posnov suggest that authority was expressed from the Bishop of Rome over eastern churches. Here is some evidence. From Orthodox MIKHAIL EMILIEVITCH POSNOV work "The History of the Christian Church Until the Great Schism of 1054". who later became an eastern rite Catholic

and in fact states the main reason for 1054 in his belief was