This should be interesting.
I think that the most common problem with people not accepting a the Catholic church, is typically because they don't understand the doctrines quite as good as they think. This was my biggest problem for years. I thought that I knew what they believed, and I thought I knew why it was wrong. Then after much time of thought, and study... I realized, I had been wrong all along about what they actually taught.
First question. Why do we as protestants believe that Peter wasn't the first 'pope'? And why do we not believe the Catholic church is the 'first' Church?
Just a quick question, but what was the first church in your view?
Beef Wrote:Just a quick question, but what was the first church in your view?
The Catholic church, of course.
I cannot concur with the inerrancy of any man or institution, including a lot of Protestant ministers (on TV and otherwise) who confuse their own voice, their own reasonings with the thunderings of "god."
thecavemaster Wrote:I cannot concur with the inerrancy of any man or institution, including a lot of Protestant ministers (on TV and otherwise) who confuse their own voice, their own reasonings with the thunderings of "god."
I'm not for sure I know what you're saying here?
The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Papacy, of the Pope, and, for that matter, the unofficial cult of the preacher in today's evangelicalism.
thecavemaster Wrote:The doctrine of the inerrancy of the Papacy, of the Pope, and, for that matter, the unofficial cult of the preacher in today's evangelicalism.
Oh I see what you're saying.
The pope is infallible, but not incapable of error. This is based on scripture, extra scriptural, and tradition. Now whether you choose to accept that or not, is another matter. But to be catholic, a TRUE catholic.. is to believe it.
Thats really what I'm wanting to debate in this thread. "What reasons do you believe this?"
And I'm sure you'd understand that this isn't going to be a thread that you'll enjoy.. .considering it is based soley on religion... both the bible and tradition.
However, if you would like to talk about scriptural reasons for or against (or both, in my case).. then feel free! I'd love to see your unbiased view in the sense, 'assuming that one or the other is true'... and not that religion is tainted. In fact, I really hope you offer a view on this. Kinda like me not being a republican, but offering advice and apologetics for them, and democrats alike.
Not sure what "infallible" but "capable of error" is. "My paint job is infallible; however, my ladder is too small to reach the top of the house, which was an error on my part." ?
thecavemaster Wrote:Not sure what "infallible" but "capable of error" is. "My paint job is infallible; however, my ladder is too small to reach the top of the house, which was an error on my part." ?
Infallible (in catholicism) is defined as; unable to error when teaching on matters of faith and morals.
The pope can error when talking about matters of faiths and morals privately, and he can sin, and he can be wrong when talking about basketball, but when he meets this criteria, he can't error on matter of faiths and morals;
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authorityâ¦.")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals
some claim their to be a 5th, but most reject it. as it wouldn't make sense... "must be held by the whole church". If it were held by the whole church, he wouldn't need to be talking about it.
-----------------------------
Do you understand the difference now, when put in 'church speak'? Because, myself.. I'm infallible and incapable of error.
So, if the Pope is speaking of matters of faith, of morality, he is infallible; however, his opinion as to the virtue of tacos is subject to error...
thecavemaster Wrote:So, if the Pope is speaking of matters of faith, of morality, he is infallible; however, his opinion as to the virtue of tacos is subject to error...
In my infallible judgement, speaking from the right hand of God.... I would have to say you're right.
While I did not, of course, always agree with him, John Paul II was an admirable figure. The book by Malachi Martin (I think) about him was a good read.
thecavemaster Wrote:While I did not, of course, always agree with him, John Paul II was an admirable figure. The book by Malachi Martin (I think) about him was a good read.
Being a catholic sympathizer, and amateur apologist...... I should feel the same I suppose. But he was sooo anti-american sometimes that it made me sick. Especially towards the end of his life... but in his defense, he probably didn't have a clue what he was saying.
However, it is an open secret that he was 1/3 of the trifecta that brought down the Soviet Union. Which deserves tremendous thanks...
Do you think he was anti-American or anti-war? I think he would have positioned himself against things he perceived as life denying, regardless of what nation or leader proposed them.
thecavemaster Wrote:Do you think he was anti-American or anti-war? I think he would have positioned himself against things he perceived as life denying, regardless of what nation or leader proposed them.
I think he became anti american actually. (always was anti-war).
He made statement after statement about our nations failures when it came to aiding 3rd world nations and ending poverty. When our nation gives more money than probably all other 215 combined.
However, and we do give a lot, but as a % of gross national product, I don't think we exceed, and may even lag behind.
thecavemaster Wrote:However, and we do give a lot, but as a % of gross national product, I don't think we exceed, and may even lag behind.
you're probably right.
but truth be known. I'd like to see about 95% of aid cut out to foreign nations. It makes no sense to borrow money, to GIVE to another nation as we're doing right now. So not only are we borrowing money and paying interest on it for them, eventually having to pay it ALL back.... we're going to end up forgiving their debt 10 years down the road. And they'll still be just another african nation without food or water.
I'm extremely "america first". I know this, and whether its good or bad. Its me.. completely. Take care of our own, and if there's extra (not money, just the principle of it)... then help out others.
Iraq War: very questionable beginnings, very mismanaged middlings, Petraeus' in the present, uncetain future at best. $$$$$$ Poor bridges, poor folks in Northeast cannot afford heating oil, poor infrastructure in general, poor relations abroad. Failed administration.
thecavemaster Wrote:Iraq War: very questionable beginnings, very mismanaged middlings, Petraeus' in the present, uncetain future at best. $$$$$$ Poor bridges, poor folks in Northeast cannot afford heating oil, poor infrastructure in general, poor relations abroad. Failed administration.
Which is why we don't need to be spending money elsewhere, we can't don't spend enough of it here...
The issue I have with the Catholic faith is the same issue I would have had with the ancient pharaohs of Egypt if I had lived in their time......God is speaking through the pharaoh! So, essentially that makes this individual God, because God would never send false messages to his messenger, would He?.
Once any religion, whether it be Catholic, Protestant, or any other, convinces their followers that God is only reaching them through one person, then that gives that one person a LOT of power. The Pope is a powerful person, and so were the Pharoahs. The key is to make the faithful believe in this doctrine.
What irritates me about the Catholic church is the fact that they put an official that was appointed by man in the same position practically as god. The sheer thought of someone in an elected position having the authority to forgive sins and such is ludicrous.
And for those refering to tv evangelist..do not look to the preachers you see on tv as the face of Christianity. Anyone that makes a living preaching is most likely not preaching for goodness sake but for their own. Anytime a 'preacher' that is selling you a towel that will supposedly cleanse your sins can make it on tv, all hope for a believeable source on television has been lost.
It isn't just "TV preachers"... it's the whole cult of personality, the whole worship of the preacher that happens in a lot of evangelical Christianity, on TV or not...
Question: Was the Catholic Church the first? Or did the church exist before its organization...Even before Christ? Not making a statement just interested in your views on this.
Sportsfan54 Wrote:Question: Was the Catholic Church the first? Or did the church exist before its organization...Even before Christ? Not making a statement just interested in your views on this.
I realize that RR has given us his view on this question but since he supposidely isn't blogging anymore what are someone else's view?
thecavemaster Wrote:It isn't just "TV preachers"... it's the whole cult of personality, the whole worship of the preacher that happens in a lot of evangelical Christianity, on TV or not...
I can agree with some of what you are saying. With exception to the bold part. It's not the whole, but yes, it does happen in some of the personalities. As for the Church I attend and choose to worship at. We worship the Trinity (God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit) and no man is amoung them. My bible teaches me to be a servent and not to be set up on high. I am not a preacher, but I am a Deacon. But that is charge given to us, to serve others, from God. The Bible says to not put Idols before you and not to worship Idols.