Featured Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

Um...the Bible was completed before the end of the 1st century after the Apostle John had written the last of the NT writings, and before that they had the OT Scriptures and the teaching/preaching directly from the Apostles themselves (and whatever gospels and epistles began to circulate mid-first century). Granted there was not a unanimous acceptance of a handful (about seven) of NT writings until late 3rd/early 4th century, but the bulk of the NT (the four Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, 1st Peter and 1st John) were basically accepted by everyone.

 

annsni, it is a discipline not a doctrine. Friday is a day of penance and has been since the beginning of the Church.

The three elements of mortal sin are grave matter, full knowledge, and free choice.

A person with full knowledge and free will who purposely violates a discipline the Church states is grave mater commits a mortal sin. They are free to avail themselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Doubting Thomas, No, the Bible Holy Books that comprise our Bibles were written as you say, but the selection of only those writings that were and still are Canonical did not happen until the end of the 3rd Century when the bishops , through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected the Canon List. You must remember that nobody up till then had any idea which Books/ Writings ie letters etc. were the correct Word of God from a maze of writings that were almost canonical or non- canonical until the Holy Spirit guided those bishops in given as the Canon. Nobody back before that date knew for sure if what they were reading was actually for certain Holy Scripture or not.

 

You avoided annsi's point. Eating meat was a mortal sin. Now it is not, except on good Friday. Is that correct? Why and how can this be changed. After Vatican II, a loophole appeared. You didn't not answer her, you just gave the prepared Catholic dodge.

 

It was not doctrine. Eating fish on Fridays was a discipline, if broken a mortal sin was committed, but it has nothing to do with Doctrine.

 

What is the difference between doctrine and discipline?



As a rule of thumb, doctrine is what we believe and discipline is how we live out what we believe. For example, that women cannot be priests is doctrine because it is an expression of the nature of the Christian priesthood; that priests of the Latin rite of the Church must be celibate is a discipline because the Church has determined that celibacy is a helpful rule of life for priests. Because doctrine is an explication of the truths of the faith, it cannot change; because discipline regulates Christian spirituality and worship, it can.

 

Discipline, then, is man-made and can be changed as often as the Church desires. This is not to say that the authority to enact discipline is man-made. In fact, Scripture itself records the Church’s God-given authority to enact discipline: "[W]hatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18; see also 16:19). Now, this power to bind and to loose extends beyond discipline, but it certainly includes the authority to enact discipline as well.

Doctrine, on the other hand, is the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals. All such teaching—or at least the basis for it—was handed down to the Church by Jesus and the apostles prior to the death of the last apostle. Scripture refers to doctrine as "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). As mentioned before, doctrine can develop over time as the Church comes to understand it better—but it cannot change. No one—not even the pope—has the authority to change doctrine.

 

So the Rome misinterpreted their doctrine of mortal sin and changed their discipline (how they live it out). So Rome was just fallible on the situation?

 

That's not entirely accurate and is an overstatement to say the least. The idea that "nobody up until then had any idea which writings....were the correct word of God" is simply not true.

The APOSTLES knew what was the Word of God--the OT Scriptures. Paul seemed to recognized Luke's Gospel as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5) and Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scriptures (see 2 Peter 3). Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and others recognized the core of the NT scriptures and some of the other NT writings which weren't (at that time) universally recognized. The Muratorian fragment certainly seems like an official list (at least at the Church of Rome) from the early 3rd century which contained most of the NT. Eusebius in several places lists the accepted core of the NT as well as the handful of disputed books which were nonetheless accepted by most.

Sure, writings by church leaders in the late 4th Century (ie Athanasius and Damasus) and church councils shortly thereafter (Carthage and Hippo) played an instrumental role in fixing and solidfying the boundaries of the canon. However, just because there wasn't yet an iron-clad, church-wide, final official list until the late 4th century, it doesn't mean that the Church had "no idea" what comprised Holy Scripture let alone that they were somehow wondering aimlessly in a bewildering maze of non-canonical writings. The (ultimately) non-canonical writings used with any regularity by the Church were limited, basically Hermas, 1st Clement, Barnabas, Didache, Apocalypse of Peter, and perhaps a couple of others, and these are basically orthodox in content. The spurious 'gospels' and epistles were in the domain of the gnostic heretics, and the Church recognized them as being such.

 

So, man gets to decide what sins are mortal and venial? Man......decides on the definition of sin? That why the RCC is a cult. They have placed themselves above God.

 

You message to Thomas is incorrect. The early churches had a very good idea of what was scripture. The only 3 books given the time of day and not make the cut was 1 Clement, Didache(horrible misspelled I'm sure), and Shepard of Hermas. The other books really consider got in. They vast majority of letters were rejected, because they were obviously gnostic or forgeries. Hebrews was heavily debated, but made the cut.

The 3 marks to make the cut were
1.Written by Apostle
2. Written under the direction authority of an Apostle
3. Acceptance by the early churches as authentic. (Which means churches, knew what was real and not)

NT writings were immediately passed through early church and used. They were recognized as scripture by other apostles. Such as Peter acknowledging Paul's work.

 

You do not understand that it was not until the Holy Spirit guided the Bishops in discerning which writings were canonical and which were not. Those accepted Books were not written by all the Apostles. There wasn't any way that anybody absolutely knew for certain that what they wrote or was reading was Canonical until the List was selected with the help of the HS through using the Church's Bishop. Those Bishops also gave the Bible it's Table of Contents.That is a true undeniable fact of early Christian history accepted and proven by all Christians including main-line Protestant churches with only a few of the new man-made churches trying to tip over the apple cart.

 

They didn't give anything. They themselves acknowledged that scripture declared its self to them and the received it. God made his word evident. Not man. Those involved in the selection process acknowledged that.

Scripture was widely accepted and used prior to canonization as well. Which was the 3 mark of canonization. Only one book of the NT may fall unto not written by an apostle or under apostolic authority. That was Hebrews. However it was placed in the cannon believed to be written by Paul. So, it was assembled under the belief of 100% apostolic authority.

 

That is total and absolute bull and an outright lie. History proves that it is such. You are totally brainwashed.

 

I have come to the conclusion that discussion with this individual is pointless. It would take a professional spiritual deprogrammer to extricate him from his cult mentality -- or a move of the Holy Spirit.

I have learned one thing, though: The RCC is definitely a cult, contrary to what I had previously believed, their belief in the Nicene Creed nothwithstanding.

 

As soon as I post two doctrinal changes you simply deny it. Why is that? Why do you live in a state of denial.
You still can't accept the fact that Peter never was a bishop in Rome.
That in and of itself demonstrates that the entire RCC is built on a lie.
Even that doesn't phase you.

 

No, venial. Mortal sins, in a nutshell, were breaking the commandments. Now if you go to confession.....:laugh: