Why do Catholics…

[Ferris Bueller]

Mpses DIDN'T teach twelve differett sets of doctrines.
Hr taught ALL TWELVE Trives to abide by the ONE Law.

Luther was NOTHING like Moses.
By ois own admission, he opened a Pandora's Box of confusion . . .

"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams." - Martin Luther, Christians at Antwerp, 1525

I was trolling you, lol.
I knew it'd get your undies in a bunch.

I gave you three BIBLICAL reasons why there is division in the body of Christ, the church. And you completely ignored it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I gave you three BIBLICAL reasons for division in the visible church and you ignored every one of them. You are in a cult.

NO - you gave me Biblical reasons why men screw up by rejecting God's will and decidoing for themselves what they will choose to believe.

THAT'S how you get tens of thousands of perpwtually-splinbtering factions that ALL claim to have been "guided" to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

What a MESS . . .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

NO - you gave me Biblical reasons why men screw up by rejecting God's will and decidoing for themselves what they will choose to believe.

Well, you got one of the reasons right, lol. Ultimately, the true sheep of God don't reject the truth. But not everybody in the visible church who says they have the Spirit actually do, and so they have no access to the discernment of the Holy Spirit to know that what they were taught and believe is not true.

THAT'S how you get tens of thousands of perpwtually-splinbtering factions that ALL claim to have been "guided" to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

What a MESS . . .

The fact that your church is a controlled, programmed cult is why Catholics don't have the BIBLICAL reasons why there is division in the church in their church. That's not a good thing! You're all in agreement with lies. There's nothing righteous and good about that.

 

[Illuminator]

The "CC" broadly defined as the entire Christian Church -- whether acknowledging Roman primacy or not (IT IS FANTASY FOR YOU TO PRESUME THAT ALL BISHOPRICS IN THE EAST DID SO) -- did get it right about the Trinity. We agree on that much. But not only is it POSSIBLE to hold a council without Roman primacy -- Nicaea is an example of it ACTUALLY happening. This was Constantine's (and Hosius's) show, not Silverster's.

There is little point in continuing this discussion if you are going to assert MYTHS about Constantine. He was a temporal ruler with no spiritual or religious authority whatsoever, and all your harping over one canon doesn't cut it either.
Vito and Vincentius, The two Roman priests sent by Pope Sylvester (who was too sick to travel) to represent the Church of Rome at the Council of Nicea. They, along with Bishop Hosius, signed the acts of the Council before the other convened bishops did — which was a remarkable thing for mere priests to do, unless they had special authority as legates of the pope, which you seem to deny.

 

[Jim B]

NO - you gave me Biblical reasons why men screw up by rejecting God's will and decidoing for themselves what they will choose to believe.

THAT'S how you get tens of thousands of perpwtually-splinbtering factions that ALL claim to have been "guided" to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

What a MESS . . .

Simply because your denomination makes you all believe that what they tell you is the truth doesn't make it so. As Ferris Buller correctly points out, you're in a cult! "A cult is a group or movement held together by a shared commitment to a charismatic leader or ideology. It has a belief system that has the answers to all of life's questions and offers a special solution to be gained only by following the leader's rules." That is an excellent definition of the Catholic denomination and its rigid ideology. You're told exactly what to believe!

P.S. Use a spell checker!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, you got one of the reasons right, lol. Ultimately, the true sheep of God don't reject the truth. But not everybody in the visible church who says they have the Spirit actually do, and so they have no access to the discernment of the Holy Spirit to know that what they were taught and believe is not true.
So, this brings us back to the question:
WHO are the ”True” sheep?

- The ones who agree with YOU?
- The ones who think they are “led” by the Spirit and ALL believe differently?
- OR, are they the ones who were obedient to Christ by obediently following the teachings of His Church – as HE prescribed (Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16)?

The fact that your church is a controlled, programmed cult is why Catholics don't have the BIBLICAL reasons why there is division in the church in their church. That's not a good thing! You're all in agreement with lies. There's nothing righteous and good about that.

So, you actutally think that Catholics are NOT aware of the dissidents among us?
We’ve ALWAYS been aware of them.

Catholics are NOT under the false impression that everybody in the Church will go to heaven – simply because they go by the moniker of “Catholic”. If you’re NOT a faithful Catholic – then you are wasting your time.

Finally – as to your frequent – and asinine use of the term “cult” in reference to the Catholic Church - this is based on a complete ignorance of the term. Smarter people than you – including theologians have had to admit their folly regarding the use of this term over the years.

ONE great example is a treatise by philosopher and Theologian, Kenneth Samples from Reasons To Believe, called, “What Think Ye of Rome?”.
He lists the ten main reasons why the Catholic Church is NOT what people like YOU would refer to as a “cult”.

I suggest you give it a read instead of continuing to wallow in ignorance . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Simply because your denomination makes you all believe that what they tell you is the truth doesn't make it so. As Ferris Buller correctly points out, you're in a cult! "A cult is a group or movement held together by a shared commitment to a charismatic leader or ideology. It has a belief system that has the answers to all of life's questions and offers a special solution to be gained only by following the leader's rules." That is an excellent definition of the Catholic denomination and its rigid ideology. You're told exactly what to believe!

You're not smart enough to even understand what a "cult" is - so how would YOU know?
And your"assessment" of what and how Catholics believe is almost conical - if NOT so woefully-stupid.

And finslly - as I've had to remind you in the past - the Catholic Church is not a "denomination".
We didnt't break off and RENAME ourselves like YOU did,

The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter to the tune of tens of thousands of factions that ALL teach different and competing doctrines based on the interpretational whims of their all-too-HUMAN founders. . .

P.S. Use a spell checker!

I already told you that I was having some retinal issues due to illness - but you don't seem smart enough to be able to remember that . . .

 

[RedFan]

There is little point in continuing this discussion if you are going to assert MYTHS about Constantine. He was a temporal ruler with no spiritual or religious authority whatsoever, and all your harping over one canon doesn't cut it either.
Vito and Vincentius, The two Roman priests sent by Pope Sylvester (who was too sick to travel) to represent the Church of Rome at the Council of Nicea. They, along with Bishop Hosius, signed the acts of the Council before the other convened bishops did — which was a remarkable thing for mere priests to do, unless they had special authority as legates of the pope, which you seem to deny.

What myths do you think I subscribe to? I agree -- and have never denied -- that Constantine was a temporal ruler with no spiritual or religious authority whatsoever. He wanted to use Christianity as a unifying force in his political empire, and wanted the Nicene council precisely for that reason -- likely not caring one way or the other how the bishops decided to formulate their creed to put down the Arian heresy. Consensus rather than doctrine was his concern. And Hosius, who was his theological advisor to attempt that unity -- first in Alexandria, and then in Antioch, before Nicaea -- likely persuaded Constantine to convene the council.

But Hosius was at all times acting for Constantine in this regard, not for the Pope. I agree that Vito and Vincentius -- NOT Hosius -- were legatees of Pope Silvester at the Council. (If Hosius was already a papal legatee, those two would not need to have made the trip.) Their attendance and subscription provides no support for your effort to make Nicaea look like a Vatican council. It wasn't anything of the sort. Arianism wasn't viewed as a crisis in the Latin West quite the way it was in the Greek East (which is why 99% of the bishops in attendance were from the East). No doubt Silvester was keenly interested in the outcome. But he was not in any wise the moving force behind the council.

 

[Brakelite]

Why do you believe Scriptures alone can be the foundation of a Church and guard it from error?

That's easy. Because the scriptures lead people to Jesus. The so called church fathers that are often cited to support Catholic doctrine are never used to lead people to Jesus, but rather back to a church. In fact, the whole mindset inherent in catholicism is to lead people away from trusting and having faith in Jesus, to a stultified dependence on their local priest, who relies on the local bishop and so on. The Pope at the end has become a glorified high priest replacing Jesus in the minds of the flock. The shepherd is discarded and the sheep are following another sheep.
Pope Francis is the ultimate purveyor of this concept, declaring that people are a danger to themselves and to others if they have a relationship with Jesus, confessing sins to Jesus, sharing the gospel and bringing others to Jesus through that despicable practise of 'proselytizing' . So much easier for him, and you, to live and let live right? Let that one be a Catholic, and that one be a Muslim, and this one be a Hindu etc, so long as they live each other and surrender to the Pope on essential matters... Like climate Sunday and papal hegemony.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

1122

THAT'S how you get tens of thousands of perpwtually-splinbtering factions that ALL claim to have been "guided" to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

What a MESS . . .

This happens because the Holy Bible is not consistently obeyed.

Not because they reject Catholicism.

Catholicism is just another group of self proclaimed Christians who do not consistently obey the scriptures.

 

[Brakelite]

What myths do you think I subscribe to? I agree -- and have never denied -- that Constantine was a temporal ruler with no spiritual or religious authority whatsoever. He wanted to use Christianity as a unifying force in his political empire, and wanted the Nicene council precisely for that reason -- likely not caring one way or the other how the bishops decided to formulate their creed to put down the Arian heresy. Consensus rather than doctrine was his concern. And Hosius, who was his theological advisor to attempt that unity -- first in Alexandria, and then in Antioch, before Nicaea -- likely persuaded Constantine to convene the council.

But Hosius was at all times acting for Constantine in this regard, not for the Pope. I agree that Vito and Vincentius -- NOT Hosius -- were legatees of Pope Silvester at the Council. (If Hosius was already a papal legatee, those two would not need to have made the trip.) Their attendance and subscription provides no support for your effort to make Nicaea look like a Vatican council. It wasn't anything of the sort. Arianism wasn't viewed as a crisis in the Latin West quite the way it was in the Greek East (which is why 99% of the bishops in attendance were from the East). No doubt Silvester was keenly interested in the outcome. But he was not in any wise the moving force behind the council.

The question also rises, were those accused of being Arian, truly Arian? Was even Arius the heretic he is made out to be? The Catholics destroyed his writings leaving one tiny vestige that condemns him, but was that piece really his or a forgery? The Catholics were never shy in producing forgeries to sustain their authority.
Those nations accused and condemned as Arian, and later destroyed as such... Were converted by Wulfilas, who derived his faith from the eastern Greek churches, and his own writings reflect a sound faith in Christ's deity and true Sonship to the Father...a long way from the purported teachings of Arius. My reading of history suggests that those nations, the Goths, Heruli and Vandals who were ultimately destroyed, were not taken out because of the so called Arian views, but because they refused to surrender to papal authority... They were in the way of papal hegemony. Ascribing to them a heretical notion concerning the nature of the Godhead was simply a convenient excuse.

 

[RedFan]

The question also rises, were those accused of being Arian, truly Arian? Was even Arius the heretic he is made out to be? The Catholics destroyed his writings leaving one tiny vestige that condemns him, but was that piece really his or a forgery?

Yes, Arius's writings in their original form were largely destroyed, but because his detractors quoted Arius a number of times, we can discern his theology tolerably well. These include

Arius's Letter to Alexander of Alexandria

Arius's Letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia

Alexander of Alexandria's Letter to Alexander of Constantinople

plus various letters of Arius's supporters presenting his doctrine, including

Eusebius of Caesarea's Letter to Alexander of Alexandria

Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letter to Paulinus of Tyre

and, of course, his Thalia

Beyond these, we may start to drift into some potential bastardization of Arius's theology -- but if you really want to get into the weeds here, a good starting point is: Fourth Century Christianity » Documents of the Early Arian Controversy

 

[BreadOfLife]

1122
This happens because the Holy Bible is not consistently obeyed.
Not because they reject Catholicism.
Catholicism is just another group of self proclaimed Christians who do not consistently obey the scriptures.

And the question was:
WHO is right?

Jesus didn't guarantee that thousands of plintered sects 1500 years later would not succumb to the gates of Hell. He made that guarantee to His Church.
If you believe that His Church ceased to exist at some point and needed to be rebuilt inbto thousands of splinter groups with competing doctrines - then you render Him a liar.

As to your lastt comment in RED - "Cathollicism" did't disobey.
Individual Catholics did - including your Protestant Fathers.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

WHO is right?

“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35)

 

[Michiah-Imla]

"Cathollicism" did't disobey.

If the stories I hear about it’s history are correct, killing heretics is not biblical at all.

 

[BreadOfLife]

“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35)

I know plenty of atheists and Nazis who love each other . . .

 

[Illuminator]

If the stories I hear about it’s history are correct, killing heretics is not biblical at all.

I see a lot of "killing of heretics" from anti-Catholics, who never provide historical context of alleged crimes, and never give an authoritive sources, and always ignore the atrocities committed by Protestants. It's a stupid, uncharitable accusation that backfires and goes nowhere.

 

[Illuminator]

Yes, Arius's writings in their original form were largely destroyed, but because his detractors quoted Arius a number of times, we can discern his theology tolerably well. These include

Arius's Letter to Alexander of Alexandria

Arius's Letter to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia

Alexander of Alexandria's Letter to Alexander of Constantinople

plus various letters of Arius's supporters presenting his doctrine, including

Eusebius of Caesarea's Letter to Alexander of Alexandria

Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letter to Paulinus of Tyre

and, of course, his Thalia

Beyond these, we may start to drift into some potential bastardization of Arius's theology -- but if you really want to get into the weeds here, a good starting point is: Fourth Century Christianity » Documents of the Early Arian Controversy

Arius had supporters. So what. That doesn't disprove the fact that he was a heretic, who, to this day, is supported by Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I know plenty of atheists and Nazis who love each other . . .

My guess is that they would hate a biblical Christian.

 

[Taken]

And the question was:
WHO is right?

The Word of God.