[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

You are absolutely right, Christ, in any form was a problem to the Romans, but the idea of 'striking the shepard so the flock will scatter' was definitely in the minds of Roman authorities - priests and bishops were especially targeted, which makes sense - if they took them out, there would be nobody to offer the eucharist, there would be no sacraments, and the common Christians would have nobody to follow - this is not to say they didn't persecute common Christians, I just wanted to make the point that the Romans knew in alot of cases where to find the people leading these groups - I remember reading about one Emperor who said something to the effect of 'I would rather hear of another imposter Emperor in Rome, than another pope'... of course I am trying to remember the phrasing from the top of my head but you get the idea.

Your argument is diametrically opposed to scripture:

Act 8:1 And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Act 8:2 Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him.
Act 8:3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.
Act 8:4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.

God uses persecution to expand and build His church.

Chris

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

You are absolutely right, Christ, in any form was a problem to the Romans, but the idea of 'striking the shepard so the flock will scatter' was definitely in the minds of Roman authorities - priests and bishops were especially targeted, which makes sense - if they took them out, there would be nobody to offer the eucharist, there would be no sacraments, and the common Christians would have nobody to follow - this is not to say they didn't persecute common Christians, I just wanted to make the point that the Romans knew in alot of cases where to find the people leading these groups - I remember reading about one Emperor who said something to the effect of 'I would rather hear of another imposter Emperor in Rome, than another pope'... of course I am trying to remember the phrasing from the top of my head but you get the idea.

Yes they killed the Shepherd, Christ. This didn't stop anything. Chris pointed out that they went after "common Christians" and all this accomplished was to spread God's word.

You don't need a "priest" to offer communion and sacraments do not depend on man. Killing leaders isn't going to stop believers from taking communion. The common Christians had Christ to follow . How many ate the bread He broke? How many heard the "Sermon on the Mount"? How many were healed? It wasn't just a handful of men Christ had come to, it was thousands.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by comitatus1

God uses persecution to expand and build His church.

Chris

_I_ understand this - I don't think the Romans saw it that way... I think they sincerely believed they could put them out of existence...

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Yes they killed the Shepherd, Christ. This didn't stop anything. Chris pointed out that they went after "common Christians" and all this accomplished was to spread God's word.

You don't need a "priest" to offer communion and sacraments do not depend on man. Killing leaders isn't going to stop believers from taking communion. The common Christians had Christ to follow . How many ate the bread He broke? How many heard the "Sermon on the Mount"? How many were healed? It wasn't just a handful of men Christ had come to, it was thousands.

Maybe we aren't talking the same thing here - You are telling me what Scripture says, and how Christians reacted to the persecution - I am talking about the mindset of the Romans themselves - obviously I know that their persecution did not stop Christianity or I wouldn't be here now talking about it.

So what about my question on having read any Catholic books? This is something I am very curious about so I can understand where you are coming from..

[milkmandog]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

Maybe we aren't talking the same thing here - You are telling me what Scripture says, and how Christians reacted to the persecution - I am talking about the mindset of the Romans themselves - obviously I know that their persecution did not stop Christianity or I wouldn't be here now talking about it.

So what about my question on having read any Catholic books? This is something I am very curious about so I can understand where you are coming from..

I read the Joshua series does that count?

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

_I_ understand this - I don't think the Romans saw it that way... I think they sincerely believed they could put them out of existence...

The point is that God didn't seem to feel the need to make sure there are leaders [in the sense that you use the term, that is to say, as conduits of grace] in order for His Church to thrive. The Romans looked at Christianity in a worldly way, as a hierarchical structure. Ironically, it's the same way you look at it.

Chris

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

No its actualy not 2 short passages, those are just the most commonly referred to because they are the most straight forward - I am curious, have you ever read any Catholic books on what the Church believes and teaches? Besides the Catechism, I mean from an apologist or other author who helps make Scripture come alive with Catholic teaching? Just curious where you stand....

If I'm going to look into, for example, the doctrine of "outside the church there is no salvation", I'm going to go read it as it was first stated. Then, I will read writings of those who lived around that time to see how they understood it, as they were the ones who were there. Then, if the meaning still isn't extremely clear , I'll look at writings from a few hundred years after the fact and see what was written.

If you mean, do I read modern Catholic writers to get their spin on what something the church claimed hundreds of years ago means? Then the answer is no. Then again, I haven't read any books by Protestant writers either to find what they claim the church or some Protestant group teaches. I have read the Catechism, I have read pretty thoroughly on Vatican II, I have read portions of many of the early church father's writings, etc. Anyone can be convincing if they are a good writer, but they can be convincingly wrong. I go to original sources anytime it is possible.

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by comitatus1

The point is that God didn't seem to feel the need to make sure there are leaders [in the sense that you use the term, that is to say, as conduits of grace] in order for His Church to thrive. The Romans looked at Christianity in a worldly way, as a hierarchical structure. Ironically, it's the same way you look at it.

Chris

Well I would disagree, and even from Scripture - Baptism is something administered by the Apostles and those they appointed, annointing of the sick is administered by the elders of the church... we don't agree on what the Eucharist or confession is, so thats probably not worth mentioning in this case - but you wouldn't deny those first 3 would you?

[theguidedheart]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

If I'm going to look into, for example, the doctrine of "outside the church there is no salvation", I'm going to go read it as it was first stated. Then, I will read writings of those who lived around that time to see how they understood it, as they were the ones who were there. Then, if the meaning still isn't extremely clear , I'll look at writings from a few hundred years after the fact and see what was written.

If you mean, do I read modern Catholic writers to get their spin on what something the church claimed hundreds of years ago means? Then the answer is no. Then again, I haven't read any books by Protestant writers either to find what they claim the church or some Protestant group teaches. I have read the Catechism, I have read pretty thoroughly on Vatican II, I have read portions of many of the early church father's writings, etc. Anyone can be convincing if they are a good writer, but they can be convincingly wrong. I go to original sources anytime it is possible.

And thats fine, I enjoy doing the same - but its also helps to read a Catholic author tie these things together in one place where the full Catholic faith can be represented. When you read the Fathers, especially if its online, sometimes you only gets glimpses into what wrote and believed or excerpts - when you read the Catechism it can be like reading a dictionary ... but there are some good, scholarly authors out there that write on Catholic teaching in a way that shows how universally connected everything we believe in Christ is, it helps to see how lives out in reality, and where we get the roots of it in Scripture... just a suggestion - you don't have to agree with what you read obviously, but you ask me alot of questions on these threads that these people answer with alot more clarity and depth, and knowledge. You obviously have SOME interest in what modern Catholics think, or else you wouldn't spend so much time debating with me on here ...

Ignatius press has alot of good things, or there are places online where you can find free audio and mp3s. Check your library if you don't want to give money to Catholics for their books The best way you can know you disagree with authentic Catholic teaching is by hearing from Catholics themselves, and unfortunately I will never be able to do justice to the teachings of the Church, or the history of the Church like some of the professional apologists - for one thing, I don't have time, or memory retention to pull it off. I say this particularly in respect to the issue of papal authority, there are plenty of books that give a very indepth look at the papacy, in its OT and NT context, and in history.

Thats all I will probably say for awhile on here....

PEace

[comitatus1]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

Well I would disagree, and even from Scripture - Baptism is something administered by the Apostles and those they appointed, annointing of the sick is administered by the elders of the church... we don't agree on what the Eucharist or confession is, so thats probably not worth mentioning in this case - but you wouldn't deny those first 3 would you?

I deny the first one on the grounds the grounds that there is no scripture that gives only the Apostles or their appointees to baptize. Who baptized Paul, for example?

The second one is even easier. Elders are members of the local body, not part of an overarching church hierarchy.

Of course, I deny that ANY of God's grace is dependent upon any kind of human mediator. That's the great thing about the New Covenant. It's all about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and you.

Chris

[guitar-man_22]

i dont know the details of the catholic doctrine today..
but i studied a lot about the middle ages and their power..

a lot catholic doctrine is not in agreement with scripture..

for example.. excommunication- what gives the pope the power to decide whether someone will go to heaven or hell.. (idk if this practice is still intact)

the basic principals of catholic doctrine arent supported biblically..
confessions- y should you confess your sins to a priest to be forgiven.. however, if you need help with a sin ur facing then u can approach a priest for some help...

there are also many statues of saints in the catholic churches.. people pray to them.. (idolatry ???) this is a pagan practice... when christianity spread.. romans and greeks took it and changed it to fit there needs..

and prayer to saints.. once again no biblical basis.. the saints are people just like us.. they may have been closer to God.. but they are still humans and we are not to praise or worship them or even pray to them..

we are to praise, worship, and pray to our heavenly father.. GOD ...

i mean no offense to any catholics.. i just dont agree with catholic doctrine..

if u r really doubting the Catholic church.. read the Bible and compare it to Catholic doctrine.. try to see whether or not they agree....

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by theguidedheart

And thats fine, I enjoy doing the same - but its also helps to read a Catholic author tie these things together in one place where the full Catholic faith can be represented. When you read the Fathers, especially if its online, sometimes you only gets glimpses into what wrote and believed or excerpts - when you read the Catechism it can be like reading a dictionary ... but there are some good, scholarly authors out there that write on Catholic teaching in a way that shows how universally connected everything we believe in Christ is, it helps to see how lives out in reality, and where we get the roots of it in Scripture... just a suggestion - you don't have to agree with what you read obviously, but you ask me alot of questions on these threads that these people answer with alot more clarity and depth, and knowledge. You obviously have SOME interest in what modern Catholics think, or else you wouldn't spend so much time debating with me on here ...

Ignatius press has alot of good things, or there are places online where you can find free audio and mp3s. Check your library if you don't want to give money to Catholics for their books The best way you can know you disagree with authentic Catholic teaching is by hearing from Catholics themselves, and unfortunately I will never be able to do justice to the teachings of the Church, or the history of the Church like some of the professional apologists - for one thing, I don't have time, or memory retention to pull it off. I say this particularly in respect to the issue of papal authority, there are plenty of books that give a very indepth look at the papacy, in its OT and NT context, and in history.

Thats all I will probably say for awhile on here....

PEace

Yes, I have an interest in what modern Catholics think, because I have become very good friends with a Catholic man who believes little like what is presented as what Catholics believe. In the few early discussions I had with Catholics on CGR, I realized that Catholics had as diverse beliefs as do any group of Protestants. So I started reading and as I learned more, I came to realize I don't agree with a majority of the teachings of the Catholic church whereas before, I really had thought little about what the Catholic church taught. My friend does not have any problem taking communion in a Baptist church, and he definitely does not think that other church lack any of the fullness of God. From what I have found in person, many Catholics don't hold to a lot of things the church teaches.

It has nothing to do with buying "Catholic books", I don't buy any such books, nor have I read any modern apologist's writings. I simply see no need to do so. Scripture was not made to confuse me, or to keep me from knowing God, just the opposite. Scripture does say in James 1:2-5 2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. "Knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find" , etc. God does not hide His truth from me.

I'm sure I would find some such books interesting, but I simply see no need to read them.

[goldenchild]

Sorry I was away for so long. That will happen from time to time as I try and get my book written and go on various conspiratorial tangents . This thread is too long now for me to go through and respond to everything that I would like to. I believe that I will most likely refrain from posting too much about sedevacantism on CGR anymore. If people really are interested in learning more they can go to my brand new small board, or email or pm me.