Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Attention, Catholics!

  1. #1
    First Crusader's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,475

    Default Attention, Catholics!

    I am considering conversion to this fine branch of Christianity, and I have a historical, doctrinal question concerning it.

    In the Great Schism of the western church in 1378, started when the King of France imprisoned Pope Gregory XI, who died from the shock soon after. The king installed a false pope in Avignon, France. This started the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy. Many false popes appeared all over the place before the schism was finally resolved in 1417 with the Council of Constance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

    My question: How has this disastrous, embarrassing episode for the Church affected the lineage of the popes, as they are supposed to be descendants of St. Peter, according to the Petrine Doctrine.

    My guess would be not at all. But I am wondering what the official take on this is.
    Heresy grows from idleness.

    No cause for such alarm. There are many ways for you to die - I'm just one of them.

  2. #2
    Indefinitely Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY, US
    Posts
    6,521

    Default

    Isn't this more of a historical issue, First Crusader?

    (this is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know the nature of the responses you are looking for, so I can move it or leave it accordingly)

  3. #3
    First Crusader's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atheist Peace
    Isn't this more of a historical issue, First Crusader?

    (this is not a rhetorical question, I really want to know the nature of the responses you are looking for, so I can move it or leave it accordingly)
    Leave it please.

    It is a doctrinal question. I know the history, but I don't know the religious meaning of it.
    Last edited by First Crusader; October 29, 2005 at 10:11 PM.
    Heresy grows from idleness.

    No cause for such alarm. There are many ways for you to die - I'm just one of them.

  4. #4

    Default

    From what I understand about this is that none of the popes other then the roman ones were recognized. So in the end, the line of popes was never interrupted because when the schism ended, the roman pope at the time continued the line, just as the roman pope at the beginning of the schism was in line with peter. Basically, the others are not considered doctrinal popes, only the roman popes are believed to have been rightfully elected to lead he church. I hope this helps, but im not sure exactly what you are looking for.

    The simple answer is: no it did not effect the line of popes from Peter to today's Benedict XVI.

  5. #5
    First Crusader's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Tha'ts exactly what I meant. Thank you.

    Anyone have anything to add to that?
    Heresy grows from idleness.

    No cause for such alarm. There are many ways for you to die - I'm just one of them.

  6. #6

    Default

    Differnt Parts of Europe recognized the different popes. Italy followed Rome and France Avignon. That probably doesnt help you whatsoever. Anyways as a catholic boy I say Join the Church. It's the original christian church and if you have an occasional screwy pope that doesn't affect the current church. Do you think Thomas Jefferson or Washington affect how Bush runs the country at all.
    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be used until they try and take it away.
    Staff Officer of Corporal_Hicks in the Legion of Rahl
    Commanding Katrina, Crimson Scythe, drak10687 and Leonidas the Lion

  7. #7
    Major König's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    I beleive you should consult the bible on this. I am in no way bashing catholocism, but preists, confessions, purgatory, etc are not mentioned by the word of Father God. Me, I belong to no real 'christian branch', except that I believe Jesus to be the saviour and the word of Almighty God the be my final authority in life. I advise the same.

  8. #8
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,895

    Default

    As far as I know, it was considered to be an interregnum, with power ursurped by three antipopes, with a "true" pope finally elected after the crisis was resolved.
    The pope elected after the crisis re-continued the line of peter's "true" successors.

  9. #9

    Default

    no the avignon popes were legitimate. the antipopes were the last avignon pope and the roman elected pope who were both thrown out of the window and the roman pope who replaced them but refused to step down
    this is in the words of my grandpa who is a Knight of Columbus so no arguing
    The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be used until they try and take it away.
    Staff Officer of Corporal_Hicks in the Legion of Rahl
    Commanding Katrina, Crimson Scythe, drak10687 and Leonidas the Lion

  10. #10
    MaximiIian's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,895

    Default

    Read the book "The Habsburgs: Embodying Empire", and it explains it in detail, because the house of habsburg succeeded the Emperor who organized the Council at Constance, and also supported one of the rival popes. That's where I got my info.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles_47
    I beleive you should consult the bible on this. I am in no way bashing catholocism, but preists, confessions, purgatory, etc are not mentioned by the word of Father God.
    Can you show me where the Word of God mentions that the Sabbath should be kept holy on Sundays rather than Saturday? How about where the Bible mentions the Trinity and defines it? Yet almost all non-Catholic Christians happily worship on Sunday and believe in the Trinity.

    All forms of Christianity have extra-Biblical traditions and beliefs; the Catholic Church is simply more consistent and systematic about it. The Bible is the primary source of authority in Catholicism, but not the sole source of authority. Tradition and apostolic authority are also important.

    And no, I'm not a Catholic or a Christian, but if some Protestants are going to say aspects of the Catholic faith are 'non-Biblical' they should remember that (i) so are aspects of their own tradition and (ii) the Catholic Church accepts other sources of authority apart from the Bible, since the Bible does not and cannot cover every eventuality.

    These Protestants should also remember which Church gave them the Bible in the first place.

  12. #12

    Default

    Can you show me where the Word of God mentions that the Sabbath should be kept holy on Sundays rather than Saturday?
    Many Christians support Sunday worship, without Biblical support. But do they hold that the Bible does not contain all necessary truth? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it does either... but that's an unusual position for a traditional Christian to take. I consider it an inconsistency within their faiths to hold that the Bible is "it" but that things which are not supported by the Bible are doctrine.

    How about where the Bible mentions the Trinity and defines it?
    There are grounds for significant disagreement on that one. Jesus sitting on the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19), Jesus and the Father having conversations (found all over), the Holy Ghost manifesting itself seperately from either of the other two (Matt. 3:16-17, Mark 1:10-11, Luke 3:22, John 1:32) and so on. In Gethsemane when Christ prayed to the Father asking that the new-recruit Christians would be one even as the Father and the Son are one and that they would be one with Christ and the Father (John 17 in its entirety) does not support the idea that Jesus and his Father are literally the same being, but rather that they are one in purpose and are mutually supporting; as the Christ said that his followers ought to be.

    Yet almost all non-Catholic Christians happily worship on Sunday and believe in the Trinity.
    Accepting non-Biblical teachings opens up a pretty big can of worms. If you're willing to go that far, why stop at accepting Biblically unsupported Catholic doctrines? Why not read other religious groups' scripture and see what you think of that? If you're willing to accept non-Biblical religious ideas, I don't see why that should only extend to Catholic doctrines but nothing else.

    All forms of Christianity have extra-Biblical traditions and beliefs; the Catholic Church is simply more consistent and systematic about it. The Bible is the primary source of authority in Catholicism, but not the sole source of authority. Tradition and apostolic authority are also important.
    There is a case to be made for an apostasy. Amos 8:11-12 reads as follows - "11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
    12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it."

    I maintain that the early Christian church fell into apostasy, and the divine authority of the Priesthood was lost sometime after the apostles died. While the Catholics are correct that divine authority is necessary to carry out the ordinances of the gospel, I believe they are wrong in their belief that they still have that authority.

    And no, I'm not a Catholic or a Christian, but if some Protestants are going to say aspects of the Catholic faith are 'non-Biblical' they should remember that (i) so are aspects of their own tradition and (ii) the Catholic Church accepts other sources of authority apart from the Bible, since the Bible does not and cannot cover every eventuality.
    Hence the need for revelation and prophets. The New Testament warns of false prophets leading people astray, but if there were to be no more prophets then it would not give advice for judging them: by their fruits. (See Matt. 7:15-20, Luke 6:43-44) Prophecy is needed to cover every eventuality; Catholic tradition is insufficient because it is largely the remains of once-established doctrine, rather than new doctrine that applies to new situations. While churches regularly establish new doctrines for new situations, denying prophecy makes this an example of mankind guessing at the will of God, not divine inspiration or prophecy. If someone denies the existence of prophets, they remove the justification for establishing new doctrines under any conditions.

    These Protestants should also remember which Church gave them the Bible in the first place.
    And that it contains contradictions and mistakes. A nice obvious one is the different account's of Saul(Paul)'s conversion. Did he hear a voice only, or see a light? That depends on which account you read. Attempts have been made to "fix" these mistakes, but because the original translations have been lost for well over a thousand years it is essentially a series of guesses made to be consistent with other beliefs that the translator holds.
    Last edited by Empyrean; November 01, 2005 at 02:39 AM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Empyrean
    You support Sunday worship, without Biblical support. So you hold that the Bible does not contain all necessary truth? Don't get me wrong, I don't think it does either... but that's an unusual position for a traditional Christian to take.
    It would be. I'm an atheist, which is why I said in my post "I'm not a Catholic or a Christian". My point is that it doesn't make much sense for Protestants to object to the Catholic Church having traditions which are 'unBiblical' when they have such traditions as well. The idea of celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday is found nowhere in the Bible.

    There are grounds for significant disagreement on that one. Jesus and the Father having conversations, the Holy Ghost manifesting itself seperately from either of the other two, etc. In Gethsemane when Christ prayed to the Father asking that the new-recruit Christians would be one even as the Father and the Son are one does not support the idea that Jesus and his Father are literally the same being, but rather that they are one in purpose and are mutually supporting.
    There are certainly grounds for 'considerable disagreement' regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which is why Christianity took about 300 years to thrash it out. Jesus also says 'The Father is greater than I' (John 14:23) and 'But of that day and hour no one has knowledge, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but the Father only. (Matt 24:36). Trinitarian Christians (ie most Christians) have arguments which explain these sayings in the light of the Trinity, but the point is that the word 'Trinity' is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, nor is the concept spelled out. This doctrine - accepted by almost all Protestants - is a tradition developed outside of the Bible.

    It may be argued to have Biblical support, just as the Catholic doctrines and traditions of Confession and Priesthood may be so argued, but the fact remains that the concept of the Trinity as accepted by Protestants is every bit as 'unBiblical' as many Catholic doctrines.

    Accepting non-Biblical teachings opens up a pretty big can of worms. If you're willing to go that far, why stop at accepting Biblically unsupported Catholic doctrines? Why not read other religious groups' scripture and see what you think of that? If you're willing to accept non-Biblical religious ideas, I don't see why that should only extend to Catholic doctrines but nothing else.
    Leaving aside the fact I'm an atheist and accept no Christian doctrines at all, it's quite a leap to go from saying that 'non-Biblical' doctrines like Sunday worship (accepted by Catholics and Protestants alike) or Confession (accepted by Catholics and some Protestants) means that Christianity should accept, say, Buddhist doctrines. Both Sunday worship and Confession have their roots in early Christian practices and traditions and in Jewish precedents. They may be 'non-Biblical', but they are definitely Christian.

    I maintain that the early Christian church fell into apostasy, and the divine authority of the Priesthood was lost sometime after the apostles died. While the Catholics are correct that divine authority is necessary to carry out the ordinances of the gospel, I believe they are wrong in their belief that they still have that authority.
    Fine. They disagree. And this is beside the point.

    Hence the need for revelation and prophets. The New Testament warns of false prophets leading people astray, but if there were to be no more prophets then it would not give advice for judging them: by their fruits. (See Matt. 7:15-20, Luke 6:43-44) Prophecy is needed to cover every eventuality; Catholic tradition is insufficient because it is largely the remains of once-established doctrine, rather than new doctrine that applies to new situations. While churches regularly establish new doctrines for new situations, denying prophecy makes this an example of mankind guessing at the will of God, not divine inspiration or prophecy. If someone denies the existence of prophets, they remove the justification for establishing new doctrines under any conditions.
    Okay - so take that up with a Catholic. They'd argue that when Judas killed himself, the Apostles met to select a replacement for him by ballot. They argue this established the concept of 'Apostolic succession' and that this succession continues to this day through bishops and the hierarchy of the Church. You disagree? Fine, but again - that's beside the point being argued here. The argument being made was that 'non-Biblical = invalid'. By that logic , Sunday worship and the Trinity are both invalid.


    And that it contains contradictions and mistakes. A nice obvious one is the different account's of Saul(Paul)'s conversion. Did he hear a voice only, or see a light? That depends on which account you read. Attempts have been made to "fix" these mistakes, but because the original translations have been lost for well over a thousand years it is essentially a series of guesses made to be consistent with other beliefs that the translator holds.
    No arguments there. It's just interesting that Protestants reject Catholic tradition in most cases, but accept the Catholic tradition which is the foundation of the canon of the Bible. There's no bit in the Bible which defines which books are scriptural - that was determined by Catholic tradition between 150 and 400 AD.

  14. #14

    Default

    It would be. I'm an atheist, which is why I said in my post "I'm not a Catholic or a Christian". My point is that it doesn't make much sense for Protestants to object to the Catholic Church having traditions which are 'unBiblical' when they have such traditions as well. The idea of celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday is found nowhere in the Bible.
    I am aware of that. I'm using your statement (and it's a good one) to establish that christian churches (mostly protestants, the Catholics know enough about scripture and tradition to know the difference) are not as "Biblical" as they claim to be, which opens up the possibility of additional doctrine from sources other than tradition or the Bible.

    There are certainly grounds for 'considerable disagreement' regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which is why Christianity took about 300 years to thrash it out.
    I'd say that they came to the wrong conclusion. It is important for Christians to recognize this though, as Catholics tend to portray the council at Nicene as a quick polish job on the doctrines of Christianity (crossing T's and dotting I's), rather than significantly different belief systems fighting for supremacy. In the end, it was established by a vote with those voting against it being outcast as heretics. That is worth mentioning, and in my opinion could be the final step in an apostasy of the early Christian church.

    Leaving aside the fact I'm an atheist and accept no Christian doctrines at all, it's quite a leap to go from saying that 'non-Biblical' doctrines like Sunday worship (accepted by Catholics and Protestants alike) or Confession (accepted by Catholics and some Protestants) means that Christianity should accept, say, Buddhist doctrines. Both Sunday worship and Confession have their roots in early Christian practices and traditions and in Jewish precedents. They may be 'non-Biblical', but they are definitely Christian.
    I'm not saying that specific principles of other religions should be accepted, but rather that the possibility of truth existing outside of the traditional realm of Catholicism and its offshoots exists. Specifically, I'm referring to my own church (LDS) which believes in modern day prophets and ongoing inspiration and revelation. We hold our doctrines to be a re-establishment of the original church that was corrupted in apostasy, which became the Catholic Church in the process. The most common argument I've seen against the possibility of such a scenario is that we are "un-Biblical." If it is recognized that other Christian churches have a significant extra-Biblical belief set, that particular objection to the LDS faith loses its weight. Instead, we hold that the truth can be confirmed through prayer in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that personal revelation following that prayerful study is the proper test of religious truth. Worked for me, anyway.

    You disagree? Fine, but again - that's beside the point being argued here. The argument being made was that 'non-Biblical = invalid'.
    And I disagree with that point just as you do. I'm elaborating on my own belief system while commenting on other Christian faiths within the framework of the arguments that you made. I'm not arguing as though you are a proxy for the Catholics, I'm just providing my own commentary to contrast the Catholic doctrines that you are explaining, ultimately for the benefit of First Crusader or anyone else who may be interested in the matter.

    No arguments there. It's just interesting that Protestants reject Catholic tradition in most cases, but accept the Catholic tradition which is the foundation of the canon of the Bible. There's no bit in the Bible which defines which books are scriptural - that was determined by Catholic tradition between 150 and 400 AD.
    That is absolutely correct, and is one of several reasons why I find the "un-Biblical = untrue" claim of so many Christians to be without merit. It is also one reason why truth may exist outside the Bible.

  15. #15

    Default

    Thanks for your reply. I'll now let any Protestants (or Catholics) respond. Your argument certainly has validity, though (as an interested observer) the idea of a Mormon utilising a Catholic argument against the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura ... well ... interesting.

  16. #16

    Default

    Well, the Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura is sound, and since Protestants implicitly accept it when they follow Catholic traditions it makes sense for anyone with an interest in countering the Sola Scriptura belief to make use of it.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mudd The Crazy
    Anyways as a catholic boy I say Join the Church. It's the original christian church and if you have an occasional screwy pope that doesn't affect the current church.
    Are you aware that catholic church is on half of the original church? Other half is well alive in orthodox church. (which, by the way, also claims to be one and only true church)

    Just want to remind everyone of the less well known half.


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  18. #18
    First Crusader's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiwaz
    Are you aware that catholic church is on half of the original church? Other half is well alive in orthodox church. (which, by the way, also claims to be one and only true church)

    Just want to remind everyone of the less well known half.
    Not exactly true. The Catholics never considered the Eastern Orthodox church to be heresy, and vica versa. That is one factor in the crusades. Pope Urban advocated the project as a mission not only to free the holy land from Islamic desecration, but to also come to the aid of their Christian brothers in the Byzantine Empire and Armenia.

    Very different attitude than the one shown to the early Protestants, who were considered heretics.
    Heresy grows from idleness.

    No cause for such alarm. There are many ways for you to die - I'm just one of them.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by First Crusader
    Not exactly true. The Catholics never considered the Eastern Orthodox church to be heresy, and vica versa. That is one factor in the crusades. Pope Urban advocated the project as a mission not only to free the holy land from Islamic desecration, but to also come to the aid of their Christian brothers in the Byzantine Empire and Armenia.

    Very different attitude than the one shown to the early Protestants, who were considered heretics.

    Kind of depends. Since both churches... What is that religious term... Denounced leader of another during The Great Schism they effectively declared one another more or less false church. Of course this was later on fixed but that doesn't change the fact that both conside THEIR church to be "The one and only true Christian church".


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by First Crusader
    Not exactly true. The Catholics never considered the Eastern Orthodox church to be heresy, and vica versa. That is one factor in the crusades. Pope Urban advocated the project as a mission not only to free the holy land from Islamic desecration, but to also come to the aid of their Christian brothers in the Byzantine Empire and Armenia.

    Very different attitude than the one shown to the early Protestants, who were considered heretics.
    A pope also called a crusade to retake Constantinople from the turks, nobody with power responded to it though.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •