Who founded your church?

[Marymog]

Thank you Lady,

I assumed that’s what you were referring to.....The Council of Jerusalem is what Acts 15 is commonly called.

You agree with The Church that there was a leader of The Church, what we now call The Pope, after Christ was crucified. You just disagree with the 2,000 year teaching that Peter was the leader or the rock that The Church was built upon after His crucifixion. You believe James was the leader and the final authority (judge) for The Church. I listed MULTIPLE passages from Scripture showing otherwise. You have one passage to support your theory.

When did the authority of that ‘judgeship’ end? When the last Apostle died? When James died?

One question for you: At the Council of Jerusalem who is the one who made the authoritative statement We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will”.

I can give you quotes up to the 3rd century from early Church leaders saying Peter was the leader of The Church. Can you give me those quotes from the early Church about James?

Mary

@CharismaticLady

No answer, missed this post or refuseing to answer??

Curious Mary

 

[FHII]

first of al - NO priest if "forced" to be celibate. They know this before entering the seminary and make this choiuce VOLUNTARILY.

BOL, just looking for answers and clarification:

Once a man enters a seminary with the intent of becoming a priest, is he forbidden to marry upon enrollment?

What happens if he changes his mind and decides he wants to marry? Is he shunned or simply told, "Alright brother... I wish you and your wife the best!"?

Does a Catholic Priest lose his Priesthood if he marries?

What is the Catholic Churches' position on the notion that Peter was married?

What is the official Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 (a bishop must be the husband of one wife)?

I think you've must have addressed this before, but if you'd refresh my memory I would appreciate it.

 

[theefaith]

BOL, just looking for answers and clarification:

Once a man enters a seminary with the intent of becoming a priest, is he forbidden to marry upon enrollment?

What happens if he changes his mind and decides he wants to marry? Is he shunned or simply told, "Alright brother... I wish you and your wife the best!"?

Does a Catholic Priest lose his Priesthood if he marries?

What is the Catholic Churches' position on the notion that Peter was married?

What is the official Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 (a bishop must be the husband of one wife)?

I think you've must have addressed this before, but if you'd refresh my memory I would appreciate it.

It is a disciple not a doctrine

the monks always were celebrate the other priest could marry but it is for the gospel in mission lands and serving the dying at night is better to be available for service instead of having a wife and young children

celibacy does not cause sin
Celibacy is a sacrifice

there are rights in the church where the priests are married

 

[Truther]

Perhaps the most idiotic thing you've said so far - based on a complete lack of knowledge of the Law and the OT.

Try to post only intelligent replies and leave this noonsense at the door . . .

Hey, when you baptize infant baby girls, do you think they are being spiritually circumcised like the boys?

 

[Truther]

That makes ZERO sense....and here is why!

The Church has taught for 2,000 years that one must repent, be baptized and they will receive the Holy Spirit soooo your "clawing our way back" statement is bankrupt.

Your theory is that since The Church (RCC) has a teaching different than what you believe she is "trying with all of it's might to pull us back into her prison". That makes ZERO sense....You have a choice to deny Church teaching or accept it....how silly!

WHICH FIGHTERS are holding on by their fingernails?????? All you Protestants disagree with each other on salvation and doctrine and interpretations of Scripture etc etc Sooooooooooooooo who is holding on by their fingernails?? You and the 25-50 people that agree with you.....ONCE AGAIN, how silly!!!

BACK TO THE OP........Who founded your Church??? TRANSLATION: What man taught you that The Church is wrong and you are right?

I know I won't get a serious answer but I thought I would try!!

Baptized in what name?

I saw that, you RCC Acts skipper....naughty, naughty!

 

[Truther]

If im Peter, in Acts 2, i would have said, "repent and be Baptized" all you JEWS.

But if im Paul, in the Time of the Gentiles, as the "Apostle to the Gentiles", then i would "preach the Cross", and teach that "all who call on the name of Jesus, shall be saved".

I would teach John 3:16, that say, whosoever "BELIEVES"

I would teach what i teach now...>"Justification by Faith", and "the Gift of Righteousness"...."the GIFT of Salvation", and "as many as believe on Jesus, to THEM God Gives the power to become a Son of God".

Just like that.
Just like Paul does it.

Baptized in what name, and for the remission of what?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hey, when you baptize infant baby girls, do you think they are being spiritually circumcised like the boys?

"Cicumcision of the heart" (Rom. 2:29) and "Circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11-12) is how Paul refers to Baptism.
If you knew your Bible - which you obviously don't - you'd know that it's a circumcision NOT made with hands (Col. 2:11).

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, just looking for answers and clarification:

Once a man enters a seminary with the intent of becoming a priest, is he forbidden to marry upon enrollment?

What happens if he changes his mind and decides he wants to marry? Is he shunned or simply told, "Alright brother... I wish you and your wife the best!"?

Does a Catholic Priest lose his Priesthood if he marries?

What is the Catholic Churches' position on the notion that Peter was married?

What is the official Church view of 1 Timothy 3:2 (a bishop must be the husband of one wife)?

I think you've must have addressed this before, but if you'd refresh my memory I would appreciate it.

Some of the Eastern Liturgical rites allow a priest to be married. Remember that the Catholic Church is comprised of some twenty Liturgical rites that are ALL in full communion with each other. The Latin or "Roman" Rite is the largect in the West and does not allow for priests to be married. This is a discipline that can theoretically change and is NOT a doctrinal issue.

As for Peter's wife - a couple of things . . .
The verses about his mother in law allude to the fact that Peter was a widower. First of all - his wife is never mentioned, only his mother in law. When she is cured - she doesn't "assist" her daughter in serving those in the house - but does ALL the work.

Finally - as to 1 Timothy 3:2 - this verse does NOT say that a Bishop MUST be married. It says that he must NOT have more than one wife.
In 1st century culture, polygamy was common - and THIS is what is being addressed - NOT the idea that Bishops MUST me married.

Hope that helps . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Good try.

But its the Holy Spirit that says that the teaching of "forbidding to Marry" that your Church requires, is "demonic".

That is not going to change.
Fact are like that, so that's one more you can resist.

Fact the fact that this demonic teaching has caused a terribly sinful situation within the CC, that is going to continue.
And the pathetic part, is that its CAUSED by the Church itself.

Careful - your ignorance is showing again . . .

The discipline of priestly celibacy is found in the WESTERN Church - not in the Eastern Rites of the Church.
As I stated - it is a matter of diccipline - NOT doctrine.

Finally - as I educated you earlier - Paul was referring to the Gnostic heretics in his condemnation of their beliefs in 1 Tim 4.
For crying out out - do your HOMEWORK already . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

A water cult is simply a religion that believes that water causes spiritual reconciliation between God and Man.
Imagine the ignorance of thinking that water can restore sinful man to Holy God.
Imagine a theology like this that has billions deceived , and= trusting WATER .
Imagine the ignorance of TRUSTING WATER.
Kinda crazy, when you realize it.

No - as I educated you earlier - water is simply the means of how we are regenerated - NOT the ends.
A fork is the means of delivering food to your mouth - but it doesn't nourish you, get it?

Tell me, son - what did Jesus mean when He commanded his Apostles to "Baptize" in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19)?

 

[FHII]

Some of the Eastern Liturgical rites allow a priest to be married. Remember that the Catholic Church is comprised of some twenty Liturgical rites that are ALL in full communion with each other. The Latin or "Roman" Rite is the largect in the West and does not allow for priests to be married. This is a discipline that can theoretically change and is NOT a doctrinal issue.

As for Peter's wife - a couple of things . . .
The verses about his mother in law allude to the fact that Peter was a widower. First of all - his wife is never mentioned, only his mother in law. When she is cured - she doesn't "assist" her daughter in serving those in the house - but does ALL the work.

Finally - as to 1 Timothy 3:2 - this verse does NOT say that a Bishop MUST be married. It says that he must NOT have more than one wife.
In 1st century culture, polygamy was common - and THIS is what is being addressed - NOT the idea that Bishops MUST me married.

Hope that helps . . .

Ok. Thank you for the explanation. I may disagree with some of it, but its good to get an explanation.

 

[DNB]

the church is a whole
Some hide from the world and give their lives entirely to God in prayer and sacrifice enabling others to proclaim Gods word with great efficacy
One waters the other reaps

No, what you just defined is a relationship where the monastic lifestyle offers no edification to the world. God does not need praise on that level, but rather, He wants us to praise Him so that He may invigorate us, to do good and evangelical deeds to the benefit of the world.

 

[DNB]

Actually - the focus is NOT sole'y "debasing" the flesh. It is a committment to prayer and sacrifice for the edification of the Body of Christ.
And let's NOT forget that we are all called to DIFFERENT paths within the Body that are NO less important and useful:
1 Cor. 12:29-31
Are ALL apostles? Are ALL prophets? Are ALL teachers? Do ALL work miracles? Do ALL possess gifts of healing? Do ALL speak with tongues? Do ALL interpret? But zearnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

Paul stated that he offered up his sufferings - and joined those sufferings with those of Christ for the sake of the Body (Col. 1:24). How can you see this as a noble endeavor yet condemn those who imitate this behavior is beyond me . . .

No one was more engaged on the front-line than was Paul, that's my point. Have your moments of solitude in order to gain strength, then get out there on the battlefield, don't hide in a convent or monastery where your edification is wasted. No one lights a candle and then covers it with a blanket.

 

[DNB]

Good morning DNB,

Sooooo you are saying The Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth even though the Bible says The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?????

And the Bible says go to The Church to settle our differences but you are saying we should go to The Bible to settle our differences???

That's just nonsensical gibberish!!

None the less....Thank you for your time!!!

I've said a great deal many things Mary Mog, you are isolating one principle that I have stated, away from its related and contingent principle.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Thank you Lady,

I assumed that’s what you were referring to.....The Council of Jerusalem is what Acts 15 is commonly called.

You agree with The Church that there was a leader of The Church, what we now call The Pope, after Christ was crucified. You just disagree with the 2,000 year teaching that Peter was the leader or the rock that The Church was built upon after His crucifixion. You believe James was the leader and the final authority (judge) for The Church. I listed MULTIPLE passages from Scripture showing otherwise. You have one passage to support your theory.

When did the authority of that ‘judgeship’ end? When the last Apostle died? When James died?

One question for you: At the Council of Jerusalem who is the one who made the authoritative statement We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will”.

I can give you quotes up to the 3rd century from early Church leaders saying Peter was the leader of The Church. Can you give me those quotes from the early Church about James?

Mary

Not only does Acts 15 show that the leader of the Church was James, the brother of Jesus in Acts 15, but Eusebius, the early church historian does also. After his death, James was succeeded by Symeon, another relative of Jesus. The Church was always headed by a Desposyni, a relative of Jesus, not one of the apostles.

"After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord - for most of them were still living. Then they all discussed together who they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative, was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. He was, so it is said, a cousin of the Saviour, for Hegesippus tells us that Clopas was Joseph's brother.

Under the reign of Domitian, the same emperor ordered the execution of all who were of David's line, and there is an old and firm tradition tat a group of heetics accused the descendants of Jude - the brother, humanly speaking, of the Saviour - on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ Himself. This is stated by Hegesippus in so many words:

And there still survived of the Lord's family the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be His brother, humanly speaking. These were informed against as being of David's line, and brought by the evocatus before Domitian Caesar, who was as afraid of the advent of Christ as Herod had been. Domitian asked them whether they were descended from David, and they admitted it. Then he asked them what property they owned and what funds they had at their disposal. They replied that they had only 9,000 denarii between them, half belonging to each; this, they said, was not available in cash, but was the estimated value of only thirty-nine plethora of land, from which they raised the money to pay their taxes and wherewithal to support themselves by their own toil.

Then, the writer continues, they showed him their hands putting forward as proof of their toil the hardness of their bodies and the calluses impressed on their hands by incessant labour. When asked about Christ and His Kingdom - what it was like, and where and when it would appear - they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth, but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when He would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead and give every man payment according to his conduct. On hearing this, Domitian found no fault with them, but despising them as beneath his notice let them go free and issued orders terminating the persecution of the Church. On their release they became leaders of the churches, both because they had borne testimony and because they were of the Lord's family; and thanks to the establishment of peace they lived on into Trajan's time. So must we learn from Hegesippus."

Eusebius describes Peter as the leader amoung the disciples of Jesus and the principal apostle.

So as you can see Peter was the head apostle, but the Desposyni were the heads of the whole Church.

 

[CharismaticLady]

@CharismaticLady

No answer, missed this post or refuseing to answer??

Curious Mary

Refusing to answer? Oh, please! I haven't been home.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No one was more engaged on the front-line than was Paul, that's my point. Have your moments of solitude in order to gain strength, then get out there on the battlefield, don't hide in a convent or monastery where your edification is wasted. No one lights a candle and then covers it with a blanket.

Sooooo, you didn't actually read what Paul explained about the different ROLES of each member of the Body of Christ in 1 Cor 12:29-31 - did you? If you had- you wouldn't have continued with your argument because the point is moot.

 

[DNB]

Sooooo, you didn't actually read what Paul explained about the different ROLES of each member of the Body of Christ in 1 Cor 12:29-31 - did you? If you had- you wouldn't have continued with your argument because the point is moot.

You are confusing denying the world, with hiding in a monastery. There is not one NT character that delineates what you are describing, you are entirely, and as usual, misconstruing half the passages that you quote.

 

[Brakelite]

See how I DIRECTLY ADDRESSED your two allegations from your post. Sooooooo that is NOT a diversion.

No, you did not. It was a diversion, and again, hardly subtle. You cannot defend the faults of one institution by pointing out the faults of another. Yes, some of the Protestant reformers persecuted one another. And yes, they also persecuted Catholics, particularly in Britain because they feared a Catholic takeover of Britain and the subsequent loss of religious liberty... Ironic wasn't it... The liberty they wanted for themselves they weren't willing to grant Catholics. Such a courageous stand didn't come till Protestants were established in the new world and formed a constitution and bill of rights... With the help of one or two Catholics.
But back to Constantine. I wasn't alluding so much to him directly, although he certainly has a role to play in the advancement of heretical doctrines such as the Trinity and Sunday sacredness. No, what I was thinking of was when Constantine abandoned Rome altogether leaving a vacuum in political power that was filled first by the Ostrogoths but eventually, in the 6th century, by the Popes themselves. Under the decree of the emperor Justinian in 538ad, the Pope assumed civil power and authority as well as spiritual authority. Thus was fulfilled the prophecy of Revelation 13 which stated "the dragon (pagan Rome) gave him (the Antichrist) his power, his seat (throne) and great authority". That civil power was removed exactly 1260 years later by the revolutionary army of Napoleon under general Berthier. in 1798.
Popes, such as Gregory and Innocent for examples, from that time, the 6th century, forth went about confirming and establishing that Authority by persecuting numberless Christian communities as well as non Christian, particularly those who disagree with her doctrines and political authority. The church used the Kings, the princes and the rulers of this world to carry out her persecutions, yet her bishops and priests were most certainly standing by giving the orders and relaying the Pope's commands, bulls, and censures of they did not conform quickly enough or with the appropriate cruelty and aggression. Those opponents were, in the eyes of Rome, so called and designated heretics, this seeming to justify their destruction. However, the truth isn't what it always seems. Were they truly heretics? We only have Rome's word for that, and a few snippets of history that suggests that these people were using scripture for the basis of their faith and repudiated the traditions of Rome, who over the centuries brought in unbiblical innovations and superstitions that common sense and scripture denied. So yes, who were these people who held to scripture and not tradition? The Waldenses. The Albigenses. The churches that were spread far and wide all over the east, from Assyria to China. The Celtic church in Britain. The churches in Ethiopia and India. And yes, they had the scriptures. Not those from the hands of Jerome and the gnostics of Alexandria, but the Syraic peshita and those translated by such as Lucian and the disciples of the Waldenses and such as later saints all over the world, all of which existed long before Rome cared to send missionaries anywhere.
These were the fruits of the missionary endeavors of the Apostles and their immediate descendants, and the work of the disciples they made. Rome, and it's so called Catholic Church, was not the only shop in town. Even in it's very own doorstep in Milan and Turin, there were churches who refused to surrender their people to Roman heresy and tradition.
The remains of those churches still exist in the histories of those Nations in which they dwelt, and in the histories of the Vatican archives that recorded their destruction. And it wasn't only Rome that opposed them. Sand destroyed their cities in the east, along with Zoroaster, Tamerlane, the Vikings in the north, numerous others.

None of the above is theory Mary. It's just a perspective of history that the Roman church would rather not become known, and that it certainly doesn't teach in its own seminaries, universities, or schools. Those who have written of these people are themselves denigrated by Rome and are accused themselves of lying and of heresy. Of being "anti Catholic" and in today's idiom, guilty of spreading hate speech. A post such as this, that tells the truth, may in the near future become illegal... If it isn't already.
There are some excellent books that give some exhaustive and exhilarating detail of the lives and trials these people endured, but also of the wonderful victories they won in the name of Christ for the kingdom of God. Not using force of arms or coercion as did Rome, but the simple message of the gospel. I suggest you look them up.

 

[Truther]

"Cicumcision of the heart" (Rom. 2:29) and "Circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11-12) is how Paul refers to Baptism.
If you knew your Bible - which you obviously don't - you'd know that it's a circumcision NOT made with hands (Col. 2:11).

Exactly.

So the replacement for O.T. male circumcision is a N.T. spiritual heart surgery performed by God...not a ritual by RCC men performed on babies.