The Church, The Reformation, The Now

Hi NewReformation,

The reformation of the Christian Church began from the moment of its conception in Mary's fiat to the Angel Gabriel in Nazareth. The Church, being at once human and divine (this is an incarnational aspect of the ecclesia), is always in need of reform. Likewise, the unity of the Church is not dependent upon how united those outside of her visible bosom are to her. The unity of the Church remains undivided to this day, united as she is under the vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter. All of humanity is called back into the unity of Christ's Bride, united in one accord in the Catholic faith of the Apostles.

Authentic reformation always begins as critique from within. Once you depart from the apostolic teaching office, divinely instituted by our Saviour, you have not reform, but rejection.

 

Quite true. Which is why I stated that the Reformation did not fulfill it's stated purpose </font>[/QUOTE]Therefore, it just may behoove you and all who are a part of the fragmentation of the so called Protestant Reformation to come back to the original Church Christ founded, who indeed, undergoes an internal reformation at all times.

Then we would all indeed be on one body, in one Christ, one Eucharist, one Baptism, one Faith...

And there would indeed be One Flock and one Shepherd.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

The CC generated a msssive split in Christianity about 1000 AD. Then it generated several more in the 15th and 16th centuries. But if you look closely you will see an almost unbroken line of division created by the CC from the 6th century on.

This is not what Christ started in the first century but it IS what the apostles predicted STARTING with their departure.

Acts 20
"29 I know that AFTER MY departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.


That process was predicted to be "so successful" that a great "falling away" a great apostacy would result (2Thess 2) prior to the return of Christ - prior to the APPEARING of Christ.

Clearly - the apostacy from the pure faith of the first century NT church DID happen and it was in deed "AFter MY departure" as Paul predicted. In fact "not long after" by world history standards.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I presume you speak of the Orthodox schism.

As to who "generated" it is something you should look into closely, noting that there was certainly "hard-heads" on the Catholic side of the issues at hand as well. Note further that of all the churches that have separated from the Catholic Church, the Orthodox maintain a valid holy orders (they have a valid priesthood) as well as maintain all Seven Sacraments. For all intents and purposes, they have the same doctrines and beliefs as the Catholic Church teaches, differing mainly on the issue of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and one or two minor issues.

By a snap of the fingers, the Orthodox could came back to us!

Bob, who are the "savage wolves" here and how do you know that?

Can you put your finger on this "great apostasy," Bob, as it actually occurred? I tend to think of the Arian heresy that almost consumed the whole Church, save for the heroic teachings of the Church headquartered in Rome as well the staunch defense of the divinity of Christ by St. Athanasius.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

It is the Catholic Church which represent the falling away.

The time the early church introduced new doctrine the true church separated from the false one which evolved into the Catholic Church. We can learn the separation of Novatists & Donatists when the early false church forsake the discipline in the church. We can also learn from History that there are many group of Christians that contended for the faith and opposed the apostate catholic church through out all ages. And the Catholic church massacred them but there are some who survived and brought the light of the gospel to the reformers and early dissenters.

 

"This is not what Christ started in the first century but it IS what the apostles predicted STARTING with their departure.

Acts 20
"29 I know that AFTER MY departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them."

Yes of course. It is not Arianism as someone can hold that and still be considered just fine as we have seen on this board in the last week or so. It was certainly not modalism which was present in those early days or sabellianism as these two exist side by side in Protestantism with no real outcry. Mancheanism? Nope, clearly according to Bob is not what Paul Luke wrote about. Gnosticism, oh that was just a bunch of Christians being persecuted by that terrible Catholic Church that existed back then. Probably killed some of those Gnostic Apostles like Thomas. He wrote a Gospel you know. He was a baptist of course. (I hope the real Thomas doesn't mind my sarcasm today). It is the dissenters who were the true Christians along the way you know. Of course this Catholic Church that was around supressing all these true Christians mentioned above is still here today. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it . Seems like somebody said that wouldn't happen.

Blessings to all

 

Even if they are heretics as the catholic church told us today. Yet they are not to be killed as the apostate catholic church did. The Lord Jesus taught us that we should be peacemakers not killers as He himsself did. He rather become a martyr than to use His power. He has the power to do it but did not do it. If the Catholic church is the true Church why do they insisted in killing other Christians. Their attitude prove that they are not the true Christians. The true christians are those who suffered for the reproach of christ and willingly gave their lives rather than attack others.

 

The Bible taught us to separate from false brethren and mark those who do not follow the teaching of Christ. We should not compromise the truth for the sake of false unity. We should separate, not unite with the apostate church. We are commanded to come out from her and have no fellowship with her. Though we are to separate we are commanded to love them not persecute them. If they persecute us we should not fight back but trust God to fight for us. Our weapon are not carnal but spiritual. Those who used force for the cause of Christ were in mistake.

 

Well the first question is are all the things in Foxes book of Martyrs true. Read a book called "salvation at stake" if you want a more balanced view. It was written by a Protestant, his name escapes me. Yes, some Catholics did kill. (so did Protestants). Is killing sometimes justified. Well God justifies it for governments. Read Romans 13 and get out of your Rodney King imitation. I do not justify much of the killing, neither do I think it is all unjustified as some killing is not. If a burglar is going to do harm to my family I think the Lord would forgive me if I took his life. The second question of course is that there is plenty of blood on Protestant hands also that you never raise a peep about contender. Check out the history of England around the time of that Henry VIII guy and thereafter. Of course from those seeds we have King James and his most perfect of Bibles.

 

The protestants that kill are also in error. They are not walking in the light of the gospel. The apostle Paul did not kill but He himself was persecuted. It is true that God used government but in matters of church discipline, we are to just excommunicate the erring brethren. We are discouraged to go to the judge. If they commit sin that are of civil nature, the government prosecute them. But the church affair is not to be meddled by the government as what Jesus said: Render unto Caesar which as caesar's and to God which are God's.

 

So you do not believe that a member of the Church can participate in government?

 

Every one has the right to participate in government especially if that government is not opposed to God. The government is for civil and secular matter. God used it for that purpose to protect the right of every man. But to use it to kill those who practice religion contrary to the majority even if they are not criminal is not right. This is the evil of establishing a state religion. You can see the error of it when the catholic church was the official religion of the nation. The Anglican the church of England, the presbyterian the church of scotland, the Lutheran the church of Germany, the Islam the religion of Arab nations. There must be separation of church and state so that every one has the soul liberty. That is to exercise religion according to their conscience as long as you do not violate the fundamental right of others.

 

All well and good and it sounds nice in America. But in the past, error was taken much more seriously. At one time it was actually believed that the truth of God's word could be known. When someone preached in a distored fashion about it there were considered wolves who meant harm to the flock. Killing the soul in those days was considered a much greater crime than killing the body. Since it has eternal consequences I can see why them might think that. Thus societies passed laws against this. Now is there a scripture in the Bible that says that such a law should not be passed by a government? If a government becomes populated by all Christians does Romans 13 go away such that the government no longer should use the sword? If the government is less than 50% Christian what should Christians who are a part of this government do when things that are disruptive to the society and are outlawed (such as preaching heresy publically) are occuring. Should they report them to the proper government authorities? Should they be participants in such a government?

In gushy america where even paganism is okay and where homosexuality is accepted by Americans who claim to be Christian, (yet God destroyed Sodom and Gomorah himself) this all seems very barbaric, to impose the death penalty on those who preach heresy. Yet I think we should keep in mind that in those days people were very ignorant and governements perhaps were more protective than they are today of people's spiritual lives, right or wrong. It is difficult to judge those times by today's standards.

 

Hi faithcontender, good post!

When some people refused to hear the gospel message, some of Jesus'
disciples wanted to have them killed. Jesus rebuked them and said that he
came not to destroy men's lives but to save them.
Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord,
wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them,
even as Elias did?
Luke 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what
manner of spirit ye are of.
Luke 9:56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to
save them. And they went to another village.

dave

 

I have noticed the idealism of the younger spiritual people on this board.

Of the non-Roman Catholics that I know, we have no 'pinch hitting' temporary, human vicars. Our only Mediator [I Timothy 2:5; I John 2:1]is at the right hand of God on high. [Hebrews 1:3]

If St. Peter was the first pope, which he was not, I find him not setting any precedent as far as welcoming and receiving human adulation from his New Testament flock. Simon Peter calls himself 'a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ.' His title was a {doulos} a servant among the congregation. Peter had Divine authority being an apostle, but he also portrayed a true humility by letting Jesus receive the praise and glory only due His Divine Being.

The gifted Greek scholar by way of explanation of the Greek and exegesis is Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest. In his commentary, "In These Last Days" explains the word {doulos}. He says,

'The word is doulos, the most abject and servile term for a slave of the five words the Greeks used when speaking of one who serves. The verb form is {deo, "to bind." Thus, a doulos is one bound to another as a slave. The word designated one who was born as a slave. This classical usage fits in very well with the doctrinal significance of the word as it is used in the Christian system. Sinners are born into slavery to sin at physical birth, and into a loving, willing, glad servitude to Jesus Christ by regeneration.

In today's church do we have mass confusion among the leading bishops or a real effort for internal, spiritual reformation? The lack of clergy should not be considered in routing those who commit the most mischief of all alleged 'mortal sins.'

Every Christian should have a spiritual, shepherd pastor in our life time, but Peter was only first among equals in the Apostolate. I have not read or seen anything to date that the Catholic Church has declared the 'assumption of Peter into Heaven,' and thereby bypassing the grave. It might fly---as a new ex cathedra from the papal chair.

As for me, I have no other plea, I have no other argument, than that Jesus died for me.

 

Hi Ray,

What's up with this shadow stuff, if people didn't have a great amount of respect for Peter?

Acts 5:13-15
But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem.
And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number,
to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them.


Hey where in Catholic theology does it say that the Pope is not a servant. All leadership in the Church is for our service. This is not foreign to Catholicism and has no bearing on whether Peter was the Cheif of the Apostles or not. Now would you do me a favor. I know these will overwhelm you but they are Biblical. If you could refute the first five, I would be appreciative as it will cause me to give up this notion that Peter was the Cheif of the Apostles and the first Pope.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM

Here are the first 5.

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 ". . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

oops, I posted 10. Me bad.

Blessings

 

It is true that heresy is grievous sin against God. But he never commmanded us to kill those who oppose the truth. Nowhere we can find in the Bible that Jesus told his disciples to kill the pharisses. He rather told them to have a patient spirit towards them.

Jesus discouraged the use of force especially sword. He can just kill those who oppose Him but He rather chose to be patient to them.

Matthew
26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.

26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.

26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? 26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the

 

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your posts. It shed more light to the topic. God bless you more!!