The Official Catholic Thread

[Galadriel]

True they were unified, but is that possibly because most were not given access to the Bible? To read for themselves.

It's not so much an issue of access, as if the Church had the Bible under lock and key, snatching it away from people, but a lot of people in the 15th century were illiterate, with the exception of those who did go to schools run by the church, or those fortunate enough to be born into families where they had the wealth and means to gain an education and hire tutors, etc. The Church didn't keep the Bible from anyone, in fact, if you research the history, you'll see some of the earliest writings and texts from women (Middle ages, onward) were women educated by the Church and quoting the Bible. So first, I think you have to take into account that there wasn't widespread literacy in the West to the extent we have it now. Secondly, the printing press didn't exist until 1440, so before this year, Bibles were hand-copied and expensive to produce. That's why it was very common to have "a family Bible" which an entire family could share and pass down.

I think the issue isn't so much about "reading the Bible for one's self," but asserting that my individual interpretation of the Bible is THE official interpretation OVER the wisdom of Tradition and dogma. I believe @Honey Bee mentioned that a lot of stuff has been hashed out, debated, documented and studied in Catholicism--plus we have Apostolic Tradition guiding us. So if I come along in 2017 asserting that everyone was wrong for 2,000 years and *I* am right--it's kind of unlikely that the the great Fathers, Doctors, Apostles, etc. got it wrong, and suddenly I'm setting the standard for Biblical interpretation or doctrine.

I think such an underlying point of view contributes to disunity as well as conflicting views. Just think, John Calvin and the Calvinists believe we are depraved and predestined to either Heaven or Hell, without free will or choice. While John Wesley (founder of the Methodists) believed in the opposite. Who is correct? On whose side was the Holy Spirit? Logically, two opposite views can't both be true or correct, so which is it? This is why there needs to be a definitive authority on interpretation and doctrine.

 

[Galadriel]

I'm not convinced Christ established any church..

Good news, He has

And you can recognize Christ's Church by its four marks.

His Church is: one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Christ gave His Apostles the authority to lead, teach, and guide the Church, and the Apostles passed this on to their successors (in New Testament Greek, they are Episkopos, or Overseers, and today we call them Bishops). Our bishops can trace their line of succession directly to Peter and the Apostles.

 

[ang3lface816]

The source I posted today is not protestant. It is a piece written urging protestants to come back to the "mother church".

Once again not to offend, but that's the Catholic interpretation that it is the faith directly handed down from Christ.

The voyages to America which resulted in the transatlantic slave trade were financed by the government (which at the time, united church and state) and therefore the RCC. The RCC has also funded and enforced genocides in recent history, see The Dirty War in Argentina (approximately 30 years ago) in which Francis took part in.

I know we all have our various faiths and beliefs but I just wanted to provide additional information because just a year ago it seemed impossible. Now with the recent hurricanes and Natural disasters people are ready to do something/anything to prevent further destruction. The European Union recently turned to Pope Francis regarding the struggling block. Lots of things are going on that show this is all shaping up very nicely to be a one world union. As we can see, America has gone from a very liberal nation to suddenly wanting to get back to "biblical principals", even mentioning bringing back public stoning ( see recent quotes from Alabama governor Roy Moore http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/09/garrison_keillor_maybe_roy_moo.html for things like cursing and breaking the Sunday "sabbath". )

With Trumps election, the evangelicals now have a lot of influence and the government seems pretty close to uniting church and state. You don't have to search deeply to find similar statements from others in Congress.

Deeply troubling is the fact that Francis wants to silence every voice but the RCC... calling fundamental bible believers terrorists and seeking to censor freedom of press and speech. These are similar tactics used in the dark ages. I agree that there was wide spread illiteracy, but to say only the church can interpret scripture when the Bible makes it clear that the Holy Spirit often imparts understanding to even the unlearned is...a little hard to digest.

I disagree with a person having "authority" to forgive sins when the bible specifically says that blasphemy. I do not understand how going against what scripture says indicates the true faith? How is it that the RCC is the only true interpreter but then goes on to place tradition on the same level, if not higher than the scriptures? The Bible says we are not to hold tradition over scripture (Mark 7).

 

[ang3lface816]

It's not so much an issue of access, as if the Church had the Bible under lock and key, snatching it away from people, but a lot of people in the 15th century were illiterate, with the exception of those who did go to schools run by the church, or those fortunate enough to be born into families where they had the wealth and means to gain an education and hire tutors, etc. The Church didn't keep the Bible from anyone, in fact, if you research the history, you'll see some of the earliest writings and texts from women (Middle ages, onward) were women educated by the Church and quoting the Bible. So first, I think you have to take into account that there wasn't widespread literacy in the West to the extent we have it now. Secondly, the printing press didn't exist until 1440, so before this year, Bibles were hand-copied and expensive to produce. That's why it was very common to have "a family Bible" which an entire family could share and pass down.

I think the issue isn't so much about "reading the Bible for one's self," but asserting that my individual interpretation of the Bible is THE official interpretation OVER the wisdom of Tradition and dogma. I believe @Honey Bee mentioned that a lot of stuff has been hashed out, debated, documented and studied in Catholicism--plus we have Apostolic Tradition guiding us. So if I come along in 2017 asserting that everyone was wrong for 2,000 years and *I* am right--it's kind of unlikely that the the great Fathers, Doctors, Apostles, etc. got it wrong, and suddenly I'm setting the standard for Biblical interpretation or doctrine.

I think such an underlying point of view contributes to disunity as well as conflicting views. Just think, John Calvin and the Calvinists believe we are depraved and predestined to either Heaven or Hell, without free will or choice. While John Wesley (founder of the Methodists) believed in the opposite. Who is correct? On whose side was the Holy Spirit? Logically, two opposite views can't both be true or correct, so which is it? This is why there needs to be a definitive authority on interpretation and doctrine.

Sda definitely has definitive interpretation of the scriptures. The reformation was progressive, light was revealed that had currently not been understood. The true church of God, is the one keeps his commandments and has the testimony of Jesus. Catholicism was not the only faith that lasted throughout the ages, again that is Catholic doctrine. You can't just take ownership of apostles and say, see they are from our church. Pope is not an office mentioned in scripture.

 

[kanozas]

The RCC turned an absolute blinded eye towards slavery of Indigenous Americans and Africans. Absolutely! I do not support Junipero Serro being beatified at all, do not support the history of Indian Mission at all. He was over the Californian Missions and I'm against the abuse and forced attendance at Catholic schools in Canada and the U.S. and elsewhere. Sorry, but look at who took a Middle-eastern faith and hijacked it with racist flavor? Shrugs. But the thing is, White Protestants had slaves and did all kinds of evil things...are all the Protestant churches false as a result? No. There is the truth...then there is what you do or do not do, whether you wear the cloak or not. People can turn others away, for sure. It's not right and wrongs need to be corrected. Many of them have been. Some remain. But Christ has never changed. The ladies here are pointing to the unchanging One of the Ark.

The Popes are the successors of St. Peter. Jesus gave him the keys. Shrugs. There are many popes (lesser popes such as with the Coptics etc.) but there is one Vicar of Christ on earth and that is the one to whom Jesus gave the keys. They defer to his Office. It is absolutely scriptural. That's why an understanding of the history is essential. The councils cannot be stricken from history and the H-ly Spirit has led the Church according to Christ's promise. That doesn't mean that people within the Church aren't going to sin. That should be obvious lol! But that's everywhere and in all religions.

 

[Galadriel]

Sda definitely has definitive interpretation of the scriptures.

Really? Because Ellen White (the founder of SDA) has had several failed prophecies, and early SDA theology denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and many still deny the deity of Jesus Christ (very similar in this respect to Jehovah's Witness belief). This raises several red flags, even for traditional/mainstream Protestant denominations.

The reformation was progressive, light was revealed that had currently not been understood. The true church of God, is the one keeps his commandments and has the testimony of Jesus.

If this is so, then where were the SDA's in the year 1300 AD ? 1100 AD? 900 AD ? 400 AD? 200 AD? 100 AD? The answer is NOWHERE. But the Catholic Church was. And we have 2,000 years of *unbroken* succession straight from Christ and the Apostles which is historically verifiable.

Catholicism was not the only faith that lasted throughout the ages, again that is Catholic doctrine.

No, it's just plain historical research.

You can't just take ownership of apostles and say, see they are from our church. Pope is not an office mentioned in scripture.

We didn't take ownership of the Apostles--they took ownership of us. 2,000 years later, we're still here taking care of the churches they built, the communities they established, and holding to the doctrines they gave us.

Pope means "Papa" or "Daddy," named so in reference to St. Paul the Apostle calling himself our spiritual father:

1 Corinthians 4:15-16 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. Even if you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.…

The Apostles, and the men that the Apostles ordained as Overseers to take their places, were seen as spiritual fathers and affectionately called by Christians "Papas" or "Daddies," from which the word "Pope" is derived. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and Bishops (in the New Testament this is the Greek word, Episkopos) are the Overseers, and this office is definitely established and blessed by the Apostles. And, of course, the FIRST Pope is St. Peter the Apostle himself.

 

[Saravana]

I was raised Catholic and am very familiar with the thought system.

I left the church long ago and recently became born again, but not as a Catholic. I do make occasional forays to Catholic churches for special reasons (relatives funerals or mass remembrances) but I no longer fit in, though I do know plenty of Catholics who are wonderful people and no doubt are saved and will go to Heaven because God knows what is in their heart.

 

[Saravana]

Deleted

 

[SmileyNY]

everything

 

[Belle Du Jour]

The source I posted today is not protestant. It is a piece written urging protestants to come back to the "mother church".

Please check your source again: http://reformingcatholicconfession.com/committees/
These aren't Catholics

 

[Belle Du Jour]

It is not biblical for the Catholic church to decree that one HAS to go through a priest to get forgiveness of sin. Nowhere does it say so in the bible. The issue with the Catholic church and I say this with love is that it has added too many things to The Word.

Historically, Catholics created the canon of scripture ie the Bible...Also, Martin Luther removed 7 books because they (surprise surprise) confirmed church teachings.

As far as "adding" things, sola scriptura isn't biblical. The faith (Jewish and Christian) were handed down orally as well as written.

 

[Belle Du Jour]

Sda definitely has definitive interpretation of the scriptures. The reformation was progressive, light was revealed that had currently not been understood. The true church of God, is the one keeps his commandments and has the testimony of Jesus. Catholicism was not the only faith that lasted throughout the ages, again that is Catholic doctrine. You can't just take ownership of apostles and say, see they are from our church. Pope is not an office mentioned in scripture.

So, it's your belief that God allowed the church to be in error for 1500-1800 years until the reformers and Ellen White came along? Jesus Christ fulfilled the scriptures period. There will be no further revelation after Jesus. The reason why SDA, Mormons, etc are seriously questionable is because their founders came along and claimed to have more "definitive interpretation" of scripture. Also there's a big difference between 2000+ years (RCC) and 150 years (SDA,LDS,etc)...

I'm curious, how do you or SDAs in general feel about Orthodox Christians? They split from the RCC in the 1000s. In what box do you place them?

 

[Galadriel]

It is not biblical for the Catholic church to decree that one HAS to go through a priest to get forgiveness of sin. Nowhere does it say so in the bible. The issue with the Catholic church and I say this with love is that it has added too many things to The Word.

John 20:21-23

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Peter, as a Jew, and Jesus as King of the Jews, immediately knew and understood this Judaic concept of the "Keys" of the Kingdom. It set Peter as the King's (Jesus's) stewart, and what did a stewart do? He ran things in the name of the King with the appropriate authority granted him directly by the King. Also, in rabbinical teaching, "binding and loosing" has great significance--to bind and loose means to have moral and religious authority.

Jesus clearly established an office of authority with Peter and the Apostles, which includes moral and teaching authority over the Church, and the authority to forgive sins in His name "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23).

So no, Catholics didn't randomly wake up one day and decided this existed. This is something clearly established in Scripture, by Christ himself, and passed on to the Apostles. The Apostles ordained Overseers (Bishops) to succeed them in their leadership roles and it has continued in an unbroken line of succession for 2,000 years.

 

[Galadriel]

Historically, Catholics created the canon of scripture ie the Bible...Also, Martin Luther removed 7 books because they (surprise surprise) confirmed church teachings.

As far as "adding" things, sola scriptura isn't biblical. The faith (Jewish and Christian) were handed down orally as well as written.

And, the Bible itself does not even teach Sola Scriptura. So where did that come from? A guy in 1500's Europe named Martin Luther--not the Bible.

 

[dicapr]

Really? Because Ellen White (the founder of SDA) has had several failed prophecies, and early SDA theology denied the doctrine of the Trinity, and many still deny the deity of Jesus Christ (very similar in this respect to Jehovah's Witness belief). This raises several red flags, even for traditional/mainstream Protestant denominations.



If this is so, then where were the SDA's in the year 1300 AD ? 1100 AD? 900 AD ? 400 AD? 200 AD? 100 AD? The answer is NOWHERE. But the Catholic Church was. And we have 2,000 years of *unbroken* succession straight from Christ and the Apostles which is historically verifiable.




No, it's just plain historical research.



We didn't take ownership of the Apostles--they took ownership of us. 2,000 years later, we're still here taking care of the churches they built, the communities they established, and holding to the doctrines they gave us.

Pope means "Papa" or "Daddy," named so in reference to St. Paul the Apostle calling himself our spiritual father:

1 Corinthians 4:15-16 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. Even if you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.…

The Apostles, and the men that the Apostles ordained as Overseers to take their places, were seen as spiritual fathers and affectionately called by Christians "Papas" or "Daddies," from which the word "Pope" is derived. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and Bishops (in the New Testament this is the Greek word, Episkopos) are the Overseers, and this office is definitely established and blessed by the Apostles. And, of course, the FIRST Pope is St. Peter the Apostle himself.

I know that you are defending your
denomination from misinformation but at the same time please do not spread misinformation about another denomination while doing it. I was raised SDA and the idea that they deny the deity of Christ is just preposterous. The deity of Christ as the Son of God is one of the fundamental beliefs of the modern church.

Christians are so busy trying to be “right” that we forget that our main purpose is to be “right “ with God. We must all walk the path laid out for us. We will be judged on how well we’ll obey the leading of God not whose church/theology has it all right. Humans are flawed and it stands that each denomination is flawed in some way-Catholic and Protestant. I’m sure in heaven their will be people of varying denominations and beliefs who were faithful to the truth they knew and followed God with all their hearts. I’m so glad God judges and not man!

 

[Galadriel]

I know that you are defending your
denomination from misinformation but at the same time please do not spread misinformation about another denomination while doing it. I was raised SDA and the idea that they deny the deity of Christ is just preposterous. The deity of Christ as the Son of God is one of the fundamental beliefs of the modern church.

Christians are so busy trying to be “right” that we forget that our main purpose is to be “right “ with God. We must all walk the path laid out for us. We will be judged on how well we’ll obey the leading of God not whose church/theology has it all right. Humans are flawed and it stands that each denomination is flawed in some way-Catholic and Protestant. I’m sure in heaven their will be people of varying denominations and beliefs who were faithful to the truth they knew and followed God with all their hearts. I’m so glad God judges and not man!

I agree that some SDA groups do hold to the Trinity, but *not* all do, in fact, most SDA prior to the 1890's rejected the Trinity, though Adventist preachers like A.T. Jones managed to bring in a more mainstream view of the Trinity in SDA theology. The reason why you'll find strains of SDA beliefs parallel to Jehovah's Witness belief (and Jehovah's Witness do reject the Trinity and the deity of Christ) because both JW's and SDA originated from the "Advent Movement" of the 1800's and are based on the teachings of a baptist preacher named William Miller.

Also according to SDA's own official website where they proclaim their beliefs, there are at least two errors made.

1. That the souls goes to sleep or "unconsciousness" at death, which is called "Soul Sleep" and doesn't wake up until the Resurrection, which is a false belief, because the soul is *immediately* judged by Jesus Christ at the moment of death and either goes to Heaven or Hell. This is the particular judgment or personal judgment.

Quote (from adventist.org): "The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people."

2. That Christ will return, only to take the "living righteous" and "resurrected righteous," leave Hell on earth for 1,000 years, then return again to resurrect the unrighteous. Christ's Second Coming will be ONCE and FINAL, and the living and the dead (both righteous and unrighteous) will be judged publicly...aka the General Judgment.

Quote (from adventist.org): "When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later."

 

[msbettyboop]

Meh. The hand basket looks more interesting...

 

[dicapr]

I agree that some SDA groups do hold to the Trinity, but *not* all do, and *those* were the ones I spoke of when I made my statement. The reason why you'll find strains of SDA beliefs parallel to Jehovah's Witness belief (and Jehovah's Witness do reject the Trinity and the deity of Christ) because both JW's and SDA originated from the "Advent Movement" of the 1800's and are based on the teachings of a baptist preacher named William Miller.

Also according to SDA's own official website where they proclaim their beliefs, there are at least two errors made.

1. That the souls goes to sleep or "unconsciousness" at death, and doesn't wake up until the Resurrection, which is a false belief, because the soul is *immediately* judged by Jesus Christ at the moment of death and either goes to Heaven or Hell. This is the particular judgment or personal judgment.

Quote (from adventist.org): "The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people."

2. That Christ will return, only to take the "living righteous" and "resurrected righteous," leave Hell on earth for 1,000 years, then return again to resurrect the unrighteous. Christ's Second Coming will be ONCE and FINAL, and the living and the dead (both righteous and unrighteous) will be judged publicly...aka the General Judgment.

Quote (from adventist.org): "When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later."

There are not some SDA groups there is just one. No official SDA group rejects the trinity. As far as the belief in death I feel it is a moot point. No one will find out the truth until they die and then it’s too late to proclaim whether we go strait to heaven or resurrection will occur when Christ comes (which I believe) it has nothing to do with salvation and is only a point to argue our own “rightness” rather than concentration on being right with God. Because if we have failed to make God our everything when we go to heaven will not be our issue.

I’ve got no issue with Catholics Christians. Some of the most Christ-like individuals I’ve met have practiced Catholicism. I can say the same thing of SDA, some Holiness, etc. Everyone has a different walk and cross to bear and it is my hope to see all of my brothers and sisters in the next world. When we get there is no consequence to me so long as we get there.

 

[afrofaithful]

Meh. The hand basket looks more interesting...

Interesting thread. I don't know much about Catholicism, but I was raised in an apostolic church.

I no longer go

 

[Saravana]

John 20:21-23

Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

This is, unfortunately, one of the passages the Catholic church has ran away with and used and abused to subjugate the faithful. There are 3 issues with this:

1) Jesus was speaking to his disciples which he had personally handpicked. Why do Catholic priests or bishops feel that they are personally handpicked by Jesus with power to forgive or not forgive sins and that this is their exclusive prerogative? That passage could apply to ANYONE who has received the Holy Spirit, not just Catholic ordained clergy.

2) In light of the Our Father's Prayer given by Jesus, where it states: And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, would it be wise for catholic clergy or to anyone for that matter to not forgive the sins of others?

3) for this 1 (one) passage that appears to give carte blanche to Jesus' disciples to not forgive sins if they choose so, there are 10 passages that do not confine the forgiveness to the whims of disciples. There are so many passages that say that forgiveness of our sins comes from God and Jesus sacrifice on the cross for us and our confession and repentance

 

[Saravana]

Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Peter, as a Jew, and Jesus as King of the Jews, immediately knew and understood this Judaic concept of the "Keys" of the Kingdom. It set Peter as the King's (Jesus's) stewart, and what did a stewart do? He ran things in the name of the King with the appropriate authority granted him directly by the King. Also, in rabbinical teaching, "binding and loosing" has great significance--to bind and loose means to have moral and religious authority.

Jesus clearly established an office of authority with Peter and the Apostles, which includes moral and teaching authority over the Church, and the authority to forgive sins in His name "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23).

So no, Catholics didn't randomly wake up one day and decided this existed. This is something clearly established in Scripture, by Christ himself, and passed on to the Apostles. The Apostles ordained Overseers (Bishops) to succeed them in their leadership roles and it has continued in an unbroken line of succession for 2,000 years.

I heard this line quite a bit as a justification for the superior authority of the Catholic church over ALL other churches when I was growing up. Here are my thoughts:

The passage you quoted has to be understood in context. Matthew 16: 13-19

When Jesus and his disciples were near the town of Caesarea Philippi, he asked them, “What do people say about the Son of Man?” The disciples answered, “Some people say you are John the Baptist or maybe Elijah or Jeremiah or some other prophet.” Then Jesus asked them, “But who do you say I am?” Simon Peter spoke up, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus told him: Simon, son of Jonah, you are blessed! You didn’t discover this on your own. It was shown to you by my Father in heaven. So I will call you Peter, which means “a rock.” On this rock I will build my church, and death itself will not have any power over it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and God in heaven will allow whatever you allow on earth. But he will not allow anything that you don’t allow.

I do not take the above passage to mean that any and all those who claim to be successors of Peter form the church Jesus spoke of. I am sure you are aware that some of the popes that have headed the Catholic church were anything but holy.

Taken in context, what Jesus is saying is that a church that sees Him as the Messiah and the Son of the Living God (the way Peter saw Him) is a rock on whom he builds his church and to whom he will give the "keys".

Edited for errors...

 

[bajandoc86]

There are no SDA groups. Seventh-Day Adventists are of one body/church/demonination. There are several Sabbath-keeping denominations of which the SDA church is one.

That's all I have to say.

 

[Begoody]

Taken in context, what Jesus is saying is that a church that sees Him as the Messiah and the Son of the Living God (the way Peter saw Him) is a rock on whom he builds his church and to whom he will give the "keys".

Edited for errors...

The primacy of Peter, and the fact that our Lord chose him to be the head of His Church is made clearer still when, after the resurrection, in John 21: 15-18 Christ asks him 3 times if he loved him, and commands him to " feed my lambs" and " look after my sheep".Who is usually in charge of the sheep? The Shepherd.
Also, in addition to what was mentioned up thread, when Christ tells Peter that he will be given the keys to the Kingdom... please note the typology. Protestantism often ignores the mirroring of the Old Testament in The New. The verse in Matthew 16: 18-19 is clearer when viewed via Isaiah 22:22....I place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;should he open, no one shall close, should he close, no one shall open.

 

[Belle Du Jour]

If anyone is brave enough read No Price Too High by Alex Jones. A Pentecostal Protestant minister who gave up his livelihood to convert to Catholicism. How could this have happened? He learned the history of Christianity and discovered it's catholic roots. Upon knowing the truth, he knew he couldn't go back. He as well as his family and several church members joined the Catholic Church. He died earlier this year.

 

[jerseyhaircare]

.

 

[Galadriel]

There are not some SDA groups there is just one. No official SDA group rejects the trinity.

Oh, I've come across some with some funky views on the Trinity, especially if they crossed over into SDA from being Jehovah's Witness (both denominations were born from the same Advent Movement of the 1800's based on the teachings of William Miller). However, I think after A.T. Jones, the Adventists moved more toward acceptance of the Trinity, which actually IMHO is a good thing If I were to ask my grandmother (who is SDA) about the Trinity, she'd plainly explain that she believes in the Trinity, no problem. Unfortunately, there are some SDA I've had discussions of this nature with who kind of went off sideways, and I suspect the reasoning for that is because they were holding to the *earliest* SDA views (pre-1890's) which DID reject the Trinity.

As far as the belief in death I feel it is a moot point.

I don't think it's a moot point at all. What happens to the soul after death, or the immortality of the soul, is a HUGE piece of the Christian puzzle, as Jesus Christ came and died in order to *save* our souls--hence what God teaches about the nature of the soul is of extreme importance. Neither Christ nor the Apostles taught that the soul ceased to exist or fell into a state of unconsciousness after death. When you die, Jesus Christ immediately judges your soul--no matter who you are. The soul is immortal, and death is the separation of the soul and body.

I’ve got no issue with Catholics Christians.

Great! But unfortunately some of your SDA sisters do, and turned a thread on a statement of Pope Francis to fellow Catholics on how wrong/bad Catholics are.

Some of the most Christ-like individuals I’ve met have practiced Catholicism. I can say the same thing of SDA, some Holiness, etc. Everyone has a different walk and cross to bear and it is my hope to see all of my brothers and sisters in the next world. When we get there is no consequence to me so long as we get there.

Agreed, I have seen amazing Christ-like individuals who were Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, etc. I have even visited Protestant churches with friends and family (in fact, I'm the only Catholic in my family), so my intention is not to say SDA aren't Christian, but if some SDA person (not you in particular) is going to come out swinging against Catholicism then perhaps that person needs to take a step back and look at the order of their own house, yeah?

 

[dicapr]

Oh, I've come across some with some funky views on the Trinity, especially if they crossed over into SDA from being Jehovah's Witness (both denominations were born from the same Advent Movement of the 1800's based on the teachings of William Miller). However, I think after A.T. Jones, the Adventists moved more toward acceptance of the Trinity, which actually IMHO is a good thing If I were to ask my grandmother (who is SDA) about the Trinity, she'd plainly explain that she believes in the Trinity, no problem. Unfortunately, there are some SDA I've had discussions of this nature with who kind of went off sideways, and I suspect the reasoning for that is because they were holding to the *earliest* SDA views (pre-1890's) which DID reject the Trinity.



I don't think it's a moot point at all. What happens to the soul after death, or the immortality of the soul, is a HUGE piece of the Christian puzzle, as Jesus Christ came and died in order to *save* our souls--hence what God teaches about the nature of the soul is of extreme importance. Neither Christ nor the Apostles taught that the soul ceased to exist or fell into a state of unconsciousness after death. When you die, Jesus Christ immediately judges your soul--no matter who you are. The soul is immortal, and death is the separation of the soul and body.



Great! But unfortunately some of your SDA sisters do, and turned a thread on a statement of Pope Francis to fellow Catholics on how wrong/bad Catholics are.



Agreed, I have seen amazing Christ-like individuals who were Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, etc. I have even visited Protestant churches with friends and family (in fact, I'm the only Catholic in my family), so my intention is not to say SDA aren't Christian, but if some SDA person (not you in particular) is going to come out swinging against Catholicism then perhaps that person needs to take a step back and look at the order of their own house, yeah?

I think Christians need to stop coming out swinging-period. As for the death issue we all believe in judgement and reward and punishment. The timing really doesn’t matter in the long run in my opinion. There is no dogmatic quiz that we must pass to be saved. We must just obey the two great commandments-Love God
with our everything and love our neighbors as ourselves (paraphrasing). Any other “rightness” or “ wrongness” will be sorted
out by the one true Judge. And He seems to be more forgiving of honest errors than we humans are.

The funny thing is that the need to be the one true practice of Christianity is something Catholics and SDA seem to have in common. But it is something I reject because it seems to get in the way of the second great commandment to love our neighbors. It becomes about proving our rightness over encouraging each other to live a life pleasing to God.

 

[Enyo]

Meh. Just another case of men feeling they have a right to approve or disapprove of what a woman does with her body. Asking a man for forgiveness so he can forward my request to "God"? No thanks.

 

[kanozas]

"The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment" (CCC 2053).

 

[kanozas]

The funny thing is that the need to be the one true practice of Christianity is something Catholics and SDA seem to have in common. But it is something I reject because it seems to get in the way of the second great commandment to love our neighbors. It becomes about proving our rightness over encouraging each other to live a life pleasing to God.

Since SDA is a child of the Reformation, they are only seemingly in common on a very superficial appearance being that there was one Church prior to the split. Everything references the Early Church Fathers and prior to the Early Church Fathers, everything referenced Moses and the Torah (...Tanakh, with the writings later on). The second covenant is bound with the early Church, the first with Moses and the Israelites. There is no third. This is why there is great emphasis placed upon the early Church. All those councils weren't for naught. Protestants would have NO Chrisitan religion if it were not for the Torah/Tanakh and the early Church. Everything that has come after the "one, holy, catholic (meaning "universal"...refer to the councils and jDoctors of the Church...which are also the doctors of the faith for protestants since they come in by default of the first) and apostolic.