The C0uncil 0f Trent

[simplejeff]

6 hours ago, warrior12 said:

I don't see that mentioned in the Bible anywhere and believe me, i looked.

It came from the devil,  not from God, nor from the Bible/ not in God's Word- but violently opposed to God and God's People.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

1 hour ago, warrior12 said:

Where are the scriptures or documents to support your statement.  Please show them or are they from the councils of men that made them to lead men to have false hope.  

You'll have to do your own research

[warrior12]

18 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

You'll have to do your own research

So then your statement is null and void, meaning it has no weight, no meat on the bone.   I thought you are our catholic teacher here brother.  Come on man  fill us in and don't hide the goods.  

Alright, you forced my hands.  This is what i came up with.  Is this true or give us your take.   It was drawn up by the conncil of Florence and the conncil of Trent.   This is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.   

I would have placed the document here, but not sure if i am allowed to  use their material on other sites as i saw a copyright word there.   

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by warrior12

[simplejeff]

32 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

So then your statement is null and void, meaning it has no weight, no meat on the bone.   I thought you are our catholic teacher here brother.  Come on man  fill us in and don't hide the goods. ...

There is no "goods", hidden nor otherwise,  in the terrible catholic teachings and practices.  They are not helpful nor edifying, no matter how often they are repeated - it is like taking poison again and again,  or practicing idolatry every day, day after day,  instead of turning to YHWH(GOD) by faith in Jesus.  

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

1 hour ago, warrior12 said:

So then your statement is null and void, meanin

Lol that's funny. I thought I was using your line back at you but it turns out I had you mistaken for someone else. 

1 hour ago, warrior12 said:

I thought you are our catholic teacher here brother

You flatter me  I am still very much the student. 2000's of history to learn. 

As for that link, I'll have to check it out tomorrow. I'm sick, tired and now hooped up in cough medicine and soon some pain killers for my back. 

[Retrobyter]

On 6/8/2017 at 9:03 AM, Judas Machabeus said:

Back it up with facts and proof. You claim my post is an over simplification. Yet yours is nothing but unsubstantiated claims. Where was this true Church that Jesus never abandoned?

Shalom, Judas.

I would recommend a little book titled, The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll. It's an easy read full of church history. There's no "apostolic succession." Rather, it is a contiguous trail of martyrs down through the centuries since the time of the Nicolaitan belief system found in the hierarchical structure of the irregular churches since the early 300s A.D.

This includes such groups as the Montanists, the Novations, the Paterins, the Donatists, the Paterins Cathari, the Paulicians, the Arnoldists, the Henricians, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Baptists.

The regular churches of the first two centuries A.D. consisted of born-again believers who understood that there were only two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper (often called the Eucharist). However, these were NOT "sacraments" but were simply ordinances of memorial and identification. Only born-again believers were to participate in these ordinances, and that required an understanding of what had happened to them when they were born again or "saved."

Neither baptism nor the Lord's Supper had any redemptive qualities. They were simply to identify the members of a group of people (a "church" or an ekkleesia, a "called-out meeting"), and to remember what their Lord had done for them when He went to the cross for them, suffering and dying for their sins, and being raised again the third day in newness of life.

When certain irregular churches began to attach a "saving quality" to baptism, many other, regular churches protested this "baptismal regeneration." This originated from some verses like:

Mark 16:16a
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
KJV

but forgetting "to drop the other shoe":

Mark 16:16b
but he that believeth not shall be damned.
KJV

... which doesn't mention baptism. Thus, it's not an accurate perception to think that baptism is part of the things necessary for God to save an individual. Baptism is simply the identification of the faith that a person has placed in the Savior. It was what marked them as believers and declared to the community what they now believed.

Nevertheless, when churches began to believe that baptism was a necessary part to "be born again," i.e. "baptismal regeneration," it was simply the next logical step for them to baptize their members as early as possible in life to assure that their family members, their children, were "born again." Thus, infant baptism was adopted by many of the irregular churches.

The regular churches, who disagreed with this practice, only recognized baptism by those who were ALREADY born again and that baptism did not add anything to that process. Thus, when a person was born again by believing and trusting in the Savior, he was baptized to identify himself with their churches. 

Some of these people who were born again by simply believing and trusting in the Savior had been baptized when they were children, before they were old enough to understand what they were doing, by those churches who believed that baptism was necessary for salvation; so, in the view of the churches who believed in baptismal regeneration, these churches who baptized the converts again, were so labeled: anabaptists or "re-baptizers."

Carroll also notes on p. 13 of The Trail of Blood,

Quote

"Sprinkling" and "pouring" are not now referred to. These came in much later. For several centuries, infants, like others, were immersed. The Greek Catholics (a very large brance of the Catholic church) up to this day, have never changed the original form of baptism. They practice infant baptism but have never done otherwise than immerse the children.

Then, he later notes on p. 14,

Quote

9. "Baptismal regeneration" and "infant baptism." These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent "World War." Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the "dark ages" alone--about twelve or thirteen centuries.

That's just a sample of what this little book has to offer.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

I would recommend a little book titled, The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll. It's an easy read full of church history. There's no "apostolic succession." Rather, it is a contiguous trail of martyrs down through the centuries since the time of the Nicolaitan belief system found in the hierarchical structure of the irregular churches since the early 300s A.D.

This includes such groups as the Montanists, the Novations, the Paterins, the Donatists, the Paterins Cathari, the Paulicians, the Arnoldists, the Henricians, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Baptists.

I think the trail of blood has been recommended before. So I will check it out. 

I do have one question for clarification though. The list of groups in the second paragraph. Are these what would be called the true believers and not irregular Churches?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

14 hours ago, warrior12 said:

So then your statement is null and void, meaning it has no weight, no meat on the bone.   I thought you are our catholic teacher here brother.  Come on man  fill us in and don't hide the goods.  

Alright, you forced my hands.  This is what i came up with.  Is this true or give us your take.   It was drawn up by the conncil of Florence and the conncil of Trent.   This is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia.   

I would have placed the document here, but not sure if i am allowed to  use their material on other sites as i saw a copyright word there.   

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

 

 

 

 

Again I apologize for the "do your own research" comment, that line was used on me early in the thread and I thought it was you. 

I clicked the link and skimmed over it. It's about Purgatory and all that surrounds the topic. Was there a specific part you wanted me to comment on?

[warrior12]

22 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

when you die on earth you do not stop being part of the Body of Christ, so those in heaven are pure. They've been purified by the fires of purgatory.

 

5 minutes ago, Judas Machabeus said:

Again I apologize for the "do your own research" comment, that line was used on me early in the thread and I thought it was you. 

I clicked the link and skimmed over it. It's about Purgatory and all that surrounds the topic. Was there a specific part you wanted me to comment on?

This is what happens as we grow older every day, plus it is all human to make mistakes, no problem.   You mentioned that those in haven has to be purified by the fires of purgatory.  My question was where is this stated in the Bible and or is this  mans creed or doctrine that was formulated by councils and made  to follow.  

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

1 hour ago, warrior12 said:

You mentioned that those in haven has to be purified by the fires of purgatory.  My question was where is this stated in the Bible and or is this  mans creed or doctrine that was formulated by councils and made  to follow.  

Oh yes gotcha. 

When a council declares something. That doesn't mean it's brand new. It's a teaching that has always been taught and believed as being true. For example, I can ask you the same question and replace purgatory with Trinity. Nowhere in scripture do you find the word Trinity. Yet as a Christian I assume you believe in the Trinity. The actual Trinity was defined and declared at a council (the exact one escapes me). But the Trinity has always been taught and believed. And as we grow in Christ our understanding grows as well. As does our understanding of the Trinity and Purgatory. 

With Purgatory it's a bit more difficult to full understand what Purgatory is since we have less scriputre to go by. We know that even though a sin is forgiven there's still a price to pay (David and Bethseeba). St. Paul talks about a purifying fire that comes after death and for those that are saved and we know nothing impure can enter heaven. The Trinity comes to use the same way. There is no single teaching on the Trinity in scriputre. But when you look at scripture as a whole you start to see the Trinity. 

So my short answer (notice it came after my long answer  ) is, like the Trinity there is no one passage that spells out Purgatory. You need to take scriputre as a whole. 

I understand that you and others may or will disagree with what I said about Purgatory. But for me it's all laid out in scripture. Not to start an all new rabbit trail, but the assumption of Mary is similar to this. There is no scripture verse saying she was assumed. But it's always been taught by the Church and we can see where in scripture one person for sure and possible a second were assumed Body and soul into heaven. So there  precedent set by scripture. So being assumed into heaven doesn't go against scripture. 

There have been times I've really struggled with certain teachings to the point I thought they were wrong. So when someone says on here that I blindly believe a Catholic teaching because I have to, I kinda laugh to myself. I don't HAVE to believe anything if I don't want to. Just because I don't understand a teaching doesn't mean it's wrong. For me it boils down to this (I should make this my signature I've been saying it a lot lately), Jesus founded a church (a group of believers) he gave this group leadership (Apostles), he gave his authority to these leaders (Apostles) and he promised the Holy Spirit to guide them in truth and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The two Churches that can trace their lineage right back to the Apostles are the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. I choose the Catholic Church over the Orthodox Church because of Matthew 16:18. 

So in short, I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, built up by the Apostles and continues to this day being lead by the Pope and bishops. 

Hopfully this post doesn't break the servers

cheers and sorry for chasing the rabbits.