History of the Catholic Church

For Fapstronauts of the Protestant Christian faith.

  1. Augie

    Augie Fapstronaut

    225
    1,846
    123
    The teaching of the Church is that the pope is only infallible when defining doctrine. Anything other than this the faithful should seriously consider the popes decrees but if what he’s saying isn’t being defined nor is contrary to already accepted dogma then, no, a disagreement between one pope vs another is not a problem and a Catholic is not bound by any moral punishment if they were to accept or neglect the advice of the pope.

    Although I find it interesting that a non-Catholic would be upset to hear this since most protestants think Catholics are “Papal kookaid drinkers” who blindly follow whatever the pope says. Also it’s kind of hypocritical for Protestants to have their own flip-flop in practices but still believe you’re guided by the Holy Spirit. Really the only difference between Catholics and Protestants when it comes the Papacy and infallibility is Catholics believe it’s an office handed down by Christ to St. Peter and his successors. Protestants on the other hand believe themselves to be their own infallible pope and magisterium. ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    need4realchg likes this.
  2. Augie

    Augie Fapstronaut

    225
    1,846
    123
    Examples of oral tradition being used can be found in scripture.

    Matt 2:23 “He shall be a Nazariene” is nowhere in OT.

    Matt 23:2 Jesus uses oral tradition to talk about Moses seat of authority passing from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin. This also is not recorded anywhere in the OT

    Acts 20:35 Paul relies on oral tradition to recall Christ’s words since they were recorded nowhere in the Gospels.

    Heb 11:37. The author relies on oral tradition when he mentions the martyrs were sawed in two, which isn’t recorded in the OT.

    Jude 9 relies on oral tradition when taking about the dispute between Michael the Archangel and Satan regarding Moses body. That is nowhere mentioned in scripture.

    Jude 14:15 the writer relies on oral tradition for Enoch’s prophecy which is not mentioned in the OT.

    But sure, I guess it makes sense to say the same Apostles who relied on oral tradition would be opposed to that practice. :rolleyes:
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  3. need4realchg

    need4realchg Fapstronaut

    Very well said.

    I can see that. I do think for those that are American they are a “special kind of Catholic” though.

    It is clear that the individualistic culture we export around the world makes our homegrown religious folks especially hardened type of stubborn grass.

    The docile ones outside the us are much more apt to not question the pope.

    I think this is true for all religions actually.
     
    Augie likes this.
  4. Augie

    Augie Fapstronaut

    225
    1,846
    123
    American Catholics are a special breed of stubborn. lol
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  5. need4realchg

    need4realchg Fapstronaut

    I don’t disagree with oral traditions. The Pentateuch was written long after Abraham, issac and Jacob had expired and been buried and reburied.

    He shall be called a Nazarene is prefaced in judges; referring to the strict training that samson received.

    The passing from Moses ti Joshua is not secretly done—- perhaps the passing to the Sanhedrin I can see that. But that’s a lot of time between one event and the other. Heck the kingdom of Israel has to rely on oral tradition when placed in captivity.

    But some , like the ones in Jude though, some of these are mentioned in the Jewish accounting That I previously referenced with max. There are apocryphal sources for the same events that is likely attributed to oral traditions that mirror the same details.
     
  6. need4realchg

    need4realchg Fapstronaut

    I didn’t think apostolic tradition meant only oral stories. For sure people have been telling oral stories before the apostles and once their stories merited to be written as Jesus was not returning—- yes I can see some distinction is necessary.
     
    vxlccm likes this.
  7. Augie

    Augie Fapstronaut

    225
    1,846
    123
    Well there are instances in the NT where the Apostles tell the faithful to hold fast to the traditions they’ve heard whether by letter or word. You have John himself saying there aren’t enough books in the world that could contain everything Christ has done. I don’t know how you could reject Apostolic Tradition when it’s clearly mentioned.
     
    need4realchg and vxlccm like this.
  8. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Max Fisher my beliefs are that it's less that children are born innocent than that they are alive in Christ. Yes, all mankind is fallen. But, in essence, Jesus' sacrifice includes little children.


    In my church, the age of accountability has been revealed as at 8 years of age. I will say that in personal observation - family and friends' kids, it seems like that is the age by which kids are accountable. Some clearly demonstrate strong knowledge before then. Others are disabled or impaired and of course will never be accountable. Also following with these beliefs, those that are not accountable will receive the highest reward.
     
  9. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Augie you have a much more involved and lengthy interpretation of many scriptures as a pattern I'm noticing. For me, there are several "difficult" scriptures but those are mostly the ones that were mistranslated or corrupted. At least I'm willing to just say that with honesty. Instead of wresting the Word.
     
  10. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Max Fisher it's true there have been splinter denominations of the "LDS" movement. I will add that Wikipedia always feels unnecessarily unkind in focusing on divisions rather than noting the rest as minor exceptions to the primary movement. The "Community of Christ" (formerly the Reorganized LDS) for example is really the only sizable and credible separate church at this time, not to belittle the other fundamentalists in their beliefs. And, the Community of Christ is clearly not as successful. Also, their doctrines about things such as the Book of Mormon, women holding the Priesthood, and grace vs works, are confusing to say the least. Of course, the LDS movement is only tens of decades old instead of tens of hundreds of years old so who knows what the future could hold in terms of more schisms.

    The interesting thing about the Orthodox splinters is that @Augie was seeming to say they are respected as holding a valid Priesthood. No such thing is true of the primary "Mormon" religion organized as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - the only recognized authority is all within that organization and led by it's President, currently Russel M. Nelson, seen as the prophet for the whole world.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  11. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Augie
    Cool. The LDS adherents believe a similar thing about our prophet(s).

    What I haven't ever thought to hear yet is the Pope say something like Isaiah of old and so forth: "Thus saith the Lord..." Is it your view that the Pope can do that without explicitly citing it as such. What I see online sometimes is an article signed off by an official authority (as high as a Catholic Bishop IIRC). Not sure if the Pope signs something off. Either way, in a historical sense, what the OT types of prophets would do is use language that explicitly indicated a message was being delivered from God.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  12. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Augie. Interesting. I've noticed those types of things of course, and instead chalk it up to the fact that some scriptures were lost to the Jews either via the lost tribes or when carried away into Babylon, etc. I've studied things that are quoted in the NT before as they appear to differ to what's in the OT and found it enlightening to see what appears as a re-clarification of previous scripture.

    What appears so difficult about all those comparisons is the original source languages and translations and retranslations. For me, that is easily the greatest weakness assumed in the scripture/canon process. Sure, I accept as well that some words became corrupted to the Jews due to their hard-heartedness and eschewing if not killing of prophets, but translation is already an endemic problem before questioning motives/etc.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  13. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Max Fisher One thing to add too this is that many of us see OT and NT times a little different. For me, there wasn't (at the time of the original Church at AD40 before AD67 and then so on) a sudden new switch to "apostles". What I mean is that the Priesthood office of Apostle didn't obviate the terms of prophet, seer, and revelator. Peter was the prophet once Jesus was ascended.

    So, the LDS aspect of the tradition isn't quite that the apostasy we identify happened immediately. Just that it did happen. It was more an over-time impact, well before the Nicene Creed.

    Hence, we largely agree on how to look at the apostolic contributions in terms of inspired scripture. And, Mormons love a study of the epistle of James, unlike Martin Luther :)
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  14. need4realchg

    need4realchg Fapstronaut

    Yes. I’m nodding here.

    Are you suggesting apostolic tradition means oral tradition ? That’s the first time I have heard it described as such . I described and concur most of the first century early church contemporaries did not write anything down.

    Bible scholars interpret the lack of written docs in this area to mean that most people were like mark—- not luke. But by the time Luke is writing his gospel people have accepted that Jesus’ coming is not imminent. Thus the need to write and preserve the oral tradition.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    vxlccm likes this.
  15. Augie

    Augie Fapstronaut

    225
    1,846
    123
    Yes, oral tradition is considered part of Apostolic Tradition. What the Church believes is that the entire deposit of Faith (The Christian Faith; as in its tenants, dogma/doctrine) is comprised of BOTH Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture. These two things together make-up the entire Faith like how body and soul makeup the entirety of a human person. Any Christian who just holds to one-half of the deposit of Faith is considered to be incomplete, which leads to heterodox beliefs practices etc which then leads to multiple upon multiple different denominations all teaching different things but claiming to be guided by the same Holy Spirit, who apparently suffers from some kind of identity disorder: Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptist’s, Methodists, Anabaptism, Quakers, and so on and so forth all to a point we now have Christians saying stupid stuff like “I’m spiritual but not religious” because there’s no orthodoxy among the hundred of denominations.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    vxlccm and need4realchg like this.
  16. need4realchg

    need4realchg Fapstronaut

    Funny to see the “Holy Spirit” and I share the same identity disorder!

    It’s implied if the Holy Spirit is not part of all these denominations.... how can they all be called Christian?

    Or is that your real point ? All aren’t led by the Holy Spirit ?
     
    Augie likes this.
  17. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Augie Yes, that is a statement of folly, to be sure.

    To me, saying someone is spiritual is like saying they are alive. Not very descriptive. Knowing that God exists is acknowledging not much of anything, a non-idea. As put by James, even the devils believe.
     
    Augie likes this.
  18. vxlccm

    vxlccm Fapstronaut

    @Augie @need4realchg etc.

    I'm curious what you think about the idea that the Holy Spirit can inspire nations in different ways than just the Christian faith. Personally, I think a practicing Muslim does honor his or her faith by practicing their religion, living the best they can by their conscience. I also believe those people require baptism for salvation, but believe it is readily available if they accept a baptism by proxy. The faithful Muslim working to honor God (calling Him as Allah) is way ahead of a nonvaliant Christian, or someone that refuses to accept a responsibility to be obedient to God's commandments.
     
    need4realchg likes this.
  19. Augie

    Augie Fapstronaut

    225
    1,846
    123
    Christianity isn’t just a Faith it’s also a nation. When an individual is baptized (with the correct form) they become a member of Christian nation. But is that all there is? No. As Christ said, not everyone who says Lord, Lord, Lord will enter into heaven. Even when they’re prophesying in His name or any other work. No, Christ said those who do the will of the Father will enter into the kingdom, and what the Father has willed has been revealed in the Church, which is why we have religion. So Protestants and other non-Catholics Christians are obviously still considered Christians by the Church by virtue of their baptism but they’re considered to have an imperfect union/relationship since they lack the fullness of the Faith.

    Yes, that is my point.
     
    need4realchg likes this.

Share This Page