Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(H,F,G,&R) What heretical teachings or beliefs have you seen?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This thread has been interesting but it appears to be starting to go around in circles.
    Lets wrap it up with some final thoughts from those that wish to and move on.
    I feel its time to agree to disagree and pray for one another.

    Im not locking this thread and if someone wishes to start another about some of the issues raised and not discussed in this one thats fine.

    I would like to thank everyone for keeping it civil and friendly.

    God Bless and keep you one and all.
    VERITAS VINCIT
    A CRUCE SALUS

    Comment


    • First and formost; to all contributors, this has been an educational and civil discussion of our different faiths and I, as a mod on this board do thank you for that civility. In the past, it has been a rare commodity. My "sunseting" post will deal with the various translations of Scripture. For my personal study, I read the Jerusalem Bible. This is the text that was translated at the Catholic University of Jerusalem. To my knowledge and in my own opinion, it is the most correct translation to date. I base this on the fact that the translations come from the earliest available writings of the early church that were not available just 50 years ago. And the older the original text, the closer to the original Word. Comrade Andrei, have you read this translation? If you have, what is your opinion from the Roman viewpoint? Any other have an opinion on the Jerusalem Bible?
      Pax Christ..
      Rev. Joel
      ++++++++++++
      We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne\'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition: and gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin\'s day.

      Comment


      • High-Quality Facsimile Reproductions

        What makes this book so special? It contains the six most important English language translations of the New Testament, all arranged in parallel columns for easy textual comparison of any passage. Each left-hand page shows: The Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English scripture), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible). Continuing across each right-hand page is: The Geneva 1557 - translation actually completed in 1560, (the Bible of the Protestant Reformation), The Rheims 1582 (the first Roman Catholic English version), and the 1611 King James First Edition... all side-by-side, and also laid out so the passages roughly match-up top-to-bottom as well.

        Comment


        • Well, Rev.Joel, I haven't read the Jerusalem Bible. I'll have to check it out though.

          I will agree, John_Wayne, that protestant translations of the Bible do seem close to our versions. I will say, it all depends on interpretation. If you know how to interpret it, a KJV is probably just as useful as a Rheims-Douay.

          This is my point. Many historical practices of the church (catholic and protestant) have no scriptural basis. And since scripture is the final authority, it means that we have not examined it as closely as we ought.
          Apostolic Tradition (only held by in the truest form by the Roman Catholic Church) is equal to Scripture. It complements Scripture completely. If you don't have one, you are really missing out. It would be like reading half a book and not having the other half. Sure, you get the gist of it but you don't know the whole story.

          If that is mercy, I want no part of it. And I sincerely doubt there were a lot of people eager to sign up for that treatment
          And look what time period this was all in. Yes, I will grant, the dark ages were barbaric but so was the whole world at the time.

          Again, I will say, it was a good thing that we stamped out the great heresies that came before protestantism. Those were much more dangerous. Nonetheless, protestantism is not much truer than catharism or arianism-heresy is still heresy.

          But the council still exists, which seems odd if it was just some localized zealotry confined to a few wrong people...
          Where? Just in Spain? The Holy Office of the Inquistion is no more in the Vatican. The closest modern equivalent is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but even that isn't the same.


          We have infallibility. We have the infallibility of the scripture and of the Savior and the Spirit who delivered them to us. That is all the infalibility there is, and it is all the infalibility we need.
          Well sir, that is where you are all mistaken. Scripture IS infallible, but your INTERPRETATIONS are NOT. Obviously, if you have come up with a different view than the Church-your interpretation is wrong. Without Apostolic Tradition kept by the men who gain their authority through Apostolic Succession, you cannot accurately interpret Scripture. You are the blind leading the blind.

          You have the scriptures NOW. For a time they were outlawed by the church by men who sought to protect their own evils and misdeeds while wearing the priestly robes. Not all men in the church were like this, but as Jesus said, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
          The Church was extremely wise in this, to protect the sanctity of Scripture and Holy Tradition from the uneducated minds of the commoner and from the unholy ideas of the aristocracy.

          The only way protestantism gained ground was by ferment planted in the peasant masses because of the wealth of the Church and ferment planted in the aristocracy who were always greedy for Church land. The Anglican Church was created by King Henry VIII wanting a divorce-what a foundation.

          Now, that the cat is out of the bag, we need to educate people in the proper knowledge of Scripture and the Church. Sort of like when Eve took the apple. Ignorance was the intended life, when the authority was challenged, knowledge is gained-at a price. Instead of simply following the Church on simple faith, we have millions of people searching for the truth-when it is so close and so easy to find.

          Andrei, the 1 billion RCs are those on record who have been baptised--not that it matters but you could easily take away about 25% of that figure of those who never practiced there Catholicism or those who left the RCC. So the appeal to numbers or majority (another fallacy) proves nothing.
          Once Catholic, always Catholic. You cannot be unbaptized no matter what heretical mess you have plunged yourself into.

          Comment


          • A final thought on the total authority of scripture:

            " 10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men."

            Acts chapter 17

            False teachers and false apostles were in the church EVEN WHEN the apostles were around. Thus believing in "apostolic tradition" seems fraught with danger.

            That is why we need the word, to judge who truly walks in the true revelation of faith as opposed to just taking their word for it.

            Comment


            • False teachers and false apostles were in the church EVEN WHEN the apostles were around. Thus believing in "apostolic tradition" seems fraught with danger.
              But the Pope and the bishops can trace their office directly back to the Apostles-not to false teachers.

              I too will make this my closing post on the subject. As I have said before, our Church shall never fail, never fall, never be beaten, and never be proven false. I will pray that you may all find the truth someday.

              Comment


              • And my final words here...When I was ordained to the Priesthood, I searched the records to see of what Apostolic "Lines" my Ordaining Bishop was. It was awesome to learn that those hands that anointed me and set me apart for ministry could trace the unbroken line of succession back to both Apostles James and Peter. Sorta kinda humbled me a bit. This has been a good thread. May we have more like it in the future. To Comrade Andrei, John_Wayne 777, Silence214, gconan, strmrdr and others; Thank you and may God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit bless and keep you all in the palm of His holy hand.
                Pax Christ..
                Rev. Joel
                ++++++++++++
                We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne\'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition: and gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin\'s day.

                Comment


                • Reverend Joel, Don't take this wrong but how many types of Catholics are there?

                  I know of Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and I consider the American Catholics a different catagory because they are having several differences with the Roman Catholic church in general and seem to be more Liberal! Heck i even see the " Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox as Catholics at one time!

                  This is the first time i have ever heard the term "OLD TIME CATHOLIC"!

                  Comment


                  • Das Rhinelander--I have gotten that before! The Old Catholic Movement started around 1869~1872 with the introduction of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. The Bishops of Catholic Church in Holland did not, by reason of the lack of convincing Scriptual proof,accept this dogma and severed its relationship with Rome. It is considered a valid Catholic Church because it's lines of succession are the same Petrine lines and the ordination of Priest and consectration of Bishops follow the oldest form of those rites; the Roman rite. In several cases, there is intercommunion between the two churches as need be.

                    My particular group is what is referred to as a "continuing church". We left the Episcopal Church USA in 1996 when it began to seriously look at and accept some of the nonscriptual silliness that it is now involved with and we have made inroads for acceptance by the Old Catholic Church. Thanks for asking!
                    Pax Christ..
                    Rev. Joel
                    ++++++++++++
                    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne\'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition: and gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin\'s day.

                    Comment


                    • Ok The mud has been washed from my eyes! Thanks REV, Joel, I thought thats what you saying because the Episcopalians and Lutherans were only protestant religeons i knew of that were even close to original catholic teachings but with some differences.

                      You should try following the splintering of my church and it's only been around since 1830!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X