HisServant
New member
I have just as much authority when it comes to the ekklesia.. in fact, I have more authority, than those pedophiles you follow in Rome.
the church
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
I have just as much authority when it comes to the ekklesia.. in fact, I have more authority, than those pedophiles you follow in Rome.
Cruciform
New member
Already answered---and decisively corrected---in Post #4445 above.
Cruciform
New member
That's just it: unless you can demonstrate---historically and biblically---that your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., it follows that none of the beliefs and interpretations that you have derived from that sect carry any doctrinal authority whatsoever. They are nothing more than the fallible opinions of men. So much, then, for your supposed "authority."
Straw Man Fallacy. Try again. :yawn:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Right Divider
Body part
The fantasy is strong with this one, it is.
Cruciform
New member
Feel free, then, to post your substantiated disproof of Post #4464 above. (Wait for it...)
HisServant
New member
I can demonstrate it just as well as you can demonstrate that pedophile in Rome has authority.
All you do is have to mistranslated scripture to support your cause... from my point of view the plain meaning of scripture is sufficient.
The bottom line is that authority is not something given by God or mankind, it is something that is earned within the ekklesia.
And your church is found seriously lacking in that regard... pedophilia, abuse, homosexual priests, biggest money laundering bank in the world.. genocide, stealing children in Spain and elsewhere around the world... and I could go on. There is NOTHING about your churches action that legitimize its self proclaimed authority.
Your churches actions de-legitimizes itself.
Right Divider
Body part
You are always hammering everyone about logic and yet you exclude yourself.
You have provided not one single actual evidence to support your claim that yours is the "one true church handed down from Jesus". Your links to RC dogma do not count as evidence and yet you just keep using them.
You provide plenty of rhetoric, bluff and bluster, etc. etc.
Your "one true church" has attempted to steal Israel's promises and ignores the distinct ministry of Paul (trying to make him part of "your" church).
You and your "church" are just as confused as most of the rest of "churchianity".
I do not need to "disprove" your case until you actually prove SOME proof in the first place.
Call None "Father"
The Catholic Church has a multitude of religious titles and addresses that are given to their officials. We list some of them here from page 129 of the book, My Catholic Faith.
"A priest is addressed 'Father.'
"He (the Pope, D.R.) is formally addressed as 'Your Holiness.'
"A cardinal is addressed 'Your Eminence.'
"Arch bishops and bishops are entitled 'Most Reverend,' and 'Your Excellency'; the other prelates not bishops are entitled 'Right' or 'Very Reverend Monsignor' or 'Father.' "
When Catholics address their priests and bishops as "Reverend" and "Father," they are using titles which belong only to God. Protestants who likewise label their clergymen as "Reverend" are doing the same. The term "Reverend" means basically "worthy of reverence; revered" and is used in the Bible to venerate the name of God. Psalm 111:9 says, "He has sent deliverance to his people; he has ratified his covenant forever; holy and awesome (also translated "reverend" D.R.) is his name." God alone is to be reverenced, revered and worshiped. "The Lord thy God shalt thou worship and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. 4:10). Men should not seek the glory which belongs only to Deity. They should not accept it, nor endeavor to give it. Men commit a grave error when they take the titles and designations which belong to Almighty God and place them on mere men.
Jesus said, "And call no one on earth your father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters; for one only is your Master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:9-10). Thus, we are forbidden by our Lord to call men "father" in a religious sense. We plead with our Catholic friends not to openly defy this command given by our Lord.
Catholic priests try to dodge the force of Jesus' command by telling us that if we interpreted our Lord's words literally, we could not call our parent "father." (See Questions Box, p. 310). However, in the context of Matt. 23, Jesus is condemning the religious leaders of His time who did all their works to be seen of men (vs. 5), loved marks of distinction (vs. 6), and craved the flattering titles given by men (vs. 7). The writer of Hebrews by inspiration used the term "father" for our earthly parent. He said, "Furthermore, we had fathers of our flesh to correct us..." (Heb. 12:9). In view of these things, when Jesus said "call no one on earth you father," what could he have meant but that we are not to call men "father" in a religious sense?
A young Christian girl had opportunity to introduce the local preacher to her non-Christian friends. She said, "This is my brother Mr. _______." She demonstrated both the knowledge and obedience which the Lord requires. She gave no religious title and used the term "brother" in its proper sense. The term refers to the common bond of all Christians and is not a title that is to be given only to preachers.
All preachers and teachers of God's word should boldly refuse to be called by titles belonging to God. They should not be desirous of vain glory (Gal. 5:26), but should walk humbly before God (Micah 6:8). Also, believers in Christ should be careful not to address preachers as "Father" or "Reverend" or with any other flattering title. Job 32:21-22 says, "I would not be partial to anyone, nor give flattering titles to any. For I know nought of flattery; if I did, my Maker would soon take me away."
Last edited:
The Holy Catholic Church's action in teaching on matters of faith, doctrine and morals, in and of itself legitimizes her.
Right Divider
Body part
With logic like that you can "prove" anything.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Pope Cruciform Pompous IV is now 666,666,666,666-0 in arguments on TOL.
Post a link, refer back to link, declare victory, continue onward to perdition.
That is dismantled by post 2317 -
I've studied Scripture and theology for decades. When a church, that happens to have a believable lineage back to the Apostles and therefore to the Lord Himself, comes up consistently with beautiful doctrines, that doesn't prove anything, but it did give me plenty to think about.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I agree, and then it is further annihilated by post 2829.
:BRAVO:
Are you mocking me? I sense mockery.
Right Divider
Body part
- They do not have any such "believable lineage".
- "Beautiful doctrines" is your subjective opinion and not founded on Biblical truth.
We do, in fact. And I include you1 in that "we."
And?
It was neither.
1 "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
Right Divider
Body part
Show me "justified by faith in baptism" in the Word of God. There is no such thing.
Your poor confused RCCer.
The Holy Catholic Church is the CHURCH in your Bible.
There are non-Roman rites that are also fully Catholic.