Apostolic councils?

[Marymog]

I said I do not believe in kicking because I do not believe myself to be the final authority on kicking people, I hope I never becomes that arrogant to believe my opinion is above all others.

Scripture makes it clear YOU are not the final authority....The Church is!

I have read your past posts.....You do believe your opinion is above all others.

 

[Marymog]

I thought the spirit leads us to chose and if these choices come along when we are seeking the Father we will be lead by the Father. This is what Jesus taught. Do we ignore what Jesus says and put our faith in roman councils? These are the same councils that taught inquisitions were a good idea as well as the sun revolving around the earth? Not sure if those decisions are biblical.

What you believe (people should be free to chose the teachings they believe are correct) was not taught by Jesus OR the Apostles OR written in Scripture. What you believe (people should be free to chose the teachings they believe are correct) is opposite of what Scripture teaches of which I already showed you.

Mary

 

[jaybird]

Scripture makes it clear YOU are not the final authority....The Church is!

I have read your past posts.....You do believe your opinion is above all others.

But according to you I can get a few others that share my opinion and now, since we are a group, we get to decide how a Christian should worship. Not something I want to be apart of.

 

[jaybird]

What you believe (people should be free to chose the teachings they believe are correct) was not taught by Jesus OR the Apostles OR written in Scripture. What you believe (people should be free to chose the teachings they believe are correct) is opposite of what Scripture teaches of which I already showed you.

Mary

Not what I said, your omitting the key part, you have to be seeking the Most High. You seek the Father you will be lead correctly. Your teaching people to seek the church, the followers of Jim Jones were seeking a church, then they drank the koolaid.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What's worse than DNB's hate rants is his exemption from rule violations.

Yes - there seems to be an epidemic of that around here . . .

 

[DNB]

A false assumption is often made by anti-Catholics and other critics of the Catholic Church, that when Catholics discuss how something has “always been believed,” that they are not also often referring to adherence to implicit or kernel-forms or the “acorns” or “seeds” of development of doctrine (i.e., they are referring to the essence of the doctrine, which was received from the apostles and never changes). This misunderstanding is based not only on ignorance of development of doctrine per se, but on gross neglect of the larger context of papal and conciliar utterances.

To use one illustrative example: if the Immaculate Conception had always been believed precisely as Pius IX was defining it — i.e., as the full-fledged, fully developed doctrine, as developed by 1854 — then he would not have to define it in the first place. Such ex cathedra proclamations of the extraordinary magisterium, by their very nature, presuppose that much development has taken place over time.

I have provided thorough background documentation as to the Church’s teaching on development of doctrine through the centuries.

Blessed Pope Pius IX, in the very same document where he defines the Immaculate Conception as an infallible doctrine (ex cathedra), also refers to development of doctrine:

. . . For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. (Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854; in Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962, 71)
​

Supposedly, the First Vatican Council, according to anti-Catholic polemicists William Webster and Jason Engwer, was opposed to any development, at least where it concerns papal infallibility, which it defined as an infallible doctrine. This is ludicrous, because the same pope who convoked it and ratified its proclamations, also wrote (in the very letter of convocation of the Council, to the bishops):

Pontiffs have not neglected to convoke General Councils in order to act with and unite their strength to the strength of the bishops of the whole Catholic world . . . to procure in the first place the definition of the dogmas of the faith, the destruction of widespread errors, the defense, illumination, and development of Catholic doctrine . . . (Apostolic Letter Aeterni Patris, June 29, 1868; in Papal Teachings: The Church, 193)​

In the same year of the Council, Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote:

Religion is in no sense the enemy of progress . . . If there is an immobility which in fact she cannot renounce, it is the immobility of the principles and doctrines which are divinely revealed. These can never change . . . [Heb 13:8] But for religious truths, there is progress only in their development, their penetration, their practice: in themselves they remain essentially immutable . . . All the truths divinely revealed have always been believed; they have always been a part of the deposit confided to the Church. But some of them must from time to time, according to circumstances and necessity, be placed in a stronger light and more firmly established. This is the sense in which the Church draws from her treasure new things . . . [Matt 13:52] (Allocution to the Religious Art Exposition, Rome, May 16, 1870; in Papal Teachings: The Church, 208)​

In all this, Pius was merely reflecting (note the very similar wording in his first statement above: “same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning”) the constant teaching of the Church, as stated classically by the 5th century St. Vincent of Lerins (whom the same council cited, in its explicit espousal of development of doctrine):

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent . . .[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress . . . Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else . . . but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, inasmuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same . . . nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress . . .

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, . . . admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

[57] . . . when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same . . . They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (The Commonitorium [Notebooks] )​

There is no contradiction here at all. The only contradiction and confusion resides with these anti-Catholic critics, who either don’t understand development in the first place, or refuse to learn what the Catholic Church in particular teaches about it, and how it relates to the definition of dogma. This ignorance and misinformation about doctrinal development (especially Cardinal Newman’s formulation of it) amongst anti-Catholic polemicists is unfortunately widespread. It is a sad instance of “theological tunnel vision” at its worst.

Catholic Synthesis of Development & “Believed Always by All” | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

This is why you are also an advocate of the trinity - you fail to see the contradiction. One cannot claim that there are three individual, autonomous, and distinct persons within the Godhead, and claim monotheism at the same time. Neither can a pope claim infallibility, and define the need for councils, without there being an undermining of one, or the other.
Don't believe everything that you hear, Illuminator, analyze it.

 

[DNB]

You've done NO such thing.

In fact, ALL you've done is point out some wicked actions by some wicked individuals within the Church's 2000 year history - ALL the while, IGNORING the fact that Jesus Hims3lf chose a wicked man to be one of its first leaders.
I have repeatedly destroyed this asinine argument by pointing out some of the wicked individuals within your own Protestant sects, so you keep changing your criteria for what makes a Church "Apostolic".

Moving the goal posts doesn't bolster your argument.

papal infallibility is a heresy, therefore, there are no apostles in the catholic church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

papal infallibility is a heresy, therefore, there are no apostles in the catholic church.

Do you even understand what a heresy is?
Your claim is made from an abject ignorance of the term.

 

[DNB]

And there your go.
You are the poster boy for faithlessness.

Jesus GUARANTEED His Church that it would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell. YOU, on the other hand, believe it DID.
Good luck telling that to Him when He is judging you . . .

As to your final statement in RED - you're a "non-denominational" WHAT, exactly?
Certainly NOT a Christian. Christians believe in the Triune Godhead - YOU don't

I am a non-denominational Christian, my heretic friend.
Yes, I despise the doctrine of the trinity (notice the lower case, I couldn't find devil horns).

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am a non-denominational Christian, my heretic friend.
Yes, I despise the doctrine of the trinity (notice the lower case, I couldn't find devil horns).

No - you're a non-denominational NON Christian.
Pseudo-Christian is more like it.

Like I told you in another thread - you can't deny the very nature of God - then claim to be His follower.

 

[DNB]

For 2,000 years Christianity has taught that water baptism does save you. Can you see now how even what is clearly stated in Scripture (1 Peter 3:21) is argued by some NOT to be a clearly stated in Scripture?

Well, what you quoted underscores my point, not yours? Peter is referring to a baptism of the conscious, isn't he? Water cannot cleanse one's heart, or instill the Gospel of Christ into one's mind, any more than eating a wafer can. This is just elementary logic. Even Christ said, it is not that which goes into the body that defiles a person, but what proceeds from his heart. External actions do not edify or justify, nor can they.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Scripture teaches us that Jesus taught the Apostles sound doctrine. The Apostles then taught other men sound doctrine.

YOU believe that at some point sound doctrine stopped being taught and what was taught to Christians all over the world did not align with Scripture and was NOT sound doctrine.

Sooooo when in Christian history did men stop teaching doctrine that was aligned with Scripture? You have stated a fact (what I would call a theory).....can you back it up with evidence?

Patient Mary

There was not one cataclysmic moment when God's pure unadulterated Word, ceased to professed throughout the world. It happened in stages, throughout many geographical areas. I do not believe that there is any one Church that holds to God's truth 100%, neither Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc... Man is left on his own, as you've heard me profess before, in order to come to the truth. He can only be convicted of what he can understand, and will only be justified based on how sincere and thorough his theology is (I don't mean academia, just in regard to the pertinent principles). Man is not alone though, we have theologians, churches, denominations, websites, priests, councilors, study materials and tools, that one can make an educated decision on what is orthodoxy, contra heterodoxy.

I do not denounce going to Church, a Catholic or Protestant Church, but I do criticize putting one's entire faith into that one Church. That is blind faith, history has proven that absolutely no one is 100% reliable, absolutely no one! As I keep saying, we will be alone before God on Judgment Day, do not put your salvation in the hands of someone else, no excuse will be sufficient before God. Study everywhere, in your solitude chose which is right or wrong according to Scripture, to the best of your ability - God is also patient and merciful.

 

[DNB]

Do you even understand what a heresy is?
Your claim is made from an abject ignorance of the term.

all mariology is also a heresy, plus indulgences and the intercession of the saints. Just to make you aware.

 

[DNB]

No - you're a non-denominational NON Christian.
Pseudo-Christian is more like it.

Like I told you in another thread - you can't deny the very nature of God - then claim to be His follower.

Oh, but I don't deny the pure, unquantifiable, transcendent, immutable, immortal and indivisible nature of God the Father, not whatsoever. So much, that I will vehemently denounce anyone that claims otherwise - get it?

 

[Marymog]

But according to you I can get a few others that share my opinion and now, since we are a group, we get to decide how a Christian should worship. Not something I want to be apart of.

Nope, that is not true. Scripture and Christian history make it clear that you and a "few others" sharing your opinion can "decide how a Christians should worship". I have NEVER suggested that, said that or implied that. The Church decides and Scripture has made that VERY clear. You reject that part of Scripture.

Sadly you are already a part of that since YOU decide what the Truth is and if YOU find 'a few others that share your opinion' then YOU feel like you are right in your worship.

 

[Marymog]

Not what I said, your omitting the key part, you have to be seeking the Most High. You seek the Father you will be lead correctly. Your teaching people to seek the church, the followers of Jim Jones were seeking a church, then they drank the koolaid.

jaybird, that is what you said. I cut and pasted what you said sooooooo lets try and keep this conversation honest.

All the Reformers were seeking the Most High and they all came up with different answers from the Most High sooooo how is that working out for you? It didn't work out well for them since they all disagreed with each other!!! And you probably disagree with the Reformers on Scripture interpretation and doctrine? (I'm gonna guess the answer is YES, you disagree with them)

 

[jaybird]

Nope, that is not true. Scripture and Christian history make it clear that you and a "few others" sharing your opinion can "decide how a Christians should worship". I have NEVER suggested that, said that or implied that. The Church decides and Scripture has made that VERY clear. You reject that part of Scripture.

Sadly you are already a part of that since YOU decide what the Truth is and if YOU find 'a few others that share your opinion' then YOU feel like you are right in your worship.

but its a "group" that decides who is a church. how are you not getting that?

 

[Marymog]

Well, what you quoted underscores my point, not yours? Peter is referring to a baptism of the conscious, isn't he? Water cannot cleanse one's heart, or instill the Gospel of Christ into one's mind, any more than eating a wafer can. This is just elementary logic. Even Christ said, it is not that which goes into the body that defiles a person, but what proceeds from his heart. External actions do not edify or justify, nor can they.

No, Peter is NOT referring to a baptism of the conscious. If you take the passage in CONTEXT it says that Baptism, which corresponds to THIS!!!

What is THIS DNB????? THIS is referring to WATER. The water that saved Noah and 8 in all!!!

Mary

 

[jaybird]

jaybird, that is what you said. I cut and pasted what you said sooooooo lets try and keep this conversation honest.

All the Reformers were seeking the Most High and they all came up with different answers from the Most High sooooo how is that working out for you? It didn't work out well for them since they all disagreed with each other!!! And you probably disagree with the Reformers on Scripture interpretation and doctrine? (I'm gonna guess the answer is YES, you disagree with them)

do you understand that there is a difference between human beings and robots?

 

[Marymog]

There was not one cataclysmic moment when God's pure unadulterated Word, ceased to professed throughout the world. It happened in stages, throughout many geographical areas. I do not believe that there is any one Church that holds to God's truth 100%, neither Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc... Man is left on his own, as you've heard me profess before, in order to come to the truth. He can only be convicted of what he can understand, and will only be justified based on how sincere and thorough his theology is (I don't mean academia, just in regard to the pertinent principles). Man is not alone though, we have theologians, churches, denominations, websites, priests, councilors, study materials and tools, that one can make an educated decision on what is orthodoxy, contra heterodoxy.

I do not denounce going to Church, a Catholic or Protestant Church, but I do criticize putting one's entire faith into that one Church. That is blind faith, history has proven that absolutely no one is 100% reliable, absolutely no one! As I keep saying, we will be alone before God on Judgment Day, do not put your salvation in the hands of someone else, no excuse will be sufficient before God. Study everywhere, in your solitude chose which is right or wrong according to Scripture, to the best of your ability - God is also patient and merciful.

Lol...Man is left on his own??? God abandoned us to all figure out what is true doctrine and what is a false teaching from false teachers?????


Oh goodness....I don't feel abandoned. It makes me sad that you feel abandoned by God.