Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 From: King David To: nemo@ludens.elte.hu Subject: Re: True Church [you wrote: : gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Mandock) writes: : :nscochrist@aol.com (NSCOChrist) writes: : :>Or take the Catholics: Man writes in the 'Catechism for Adults'] [ arrol volt szo, hogy kell-e penteken bojtolni, es hogy a papista [ eloirasok ebben a temaban miert enyhultek meg ujabban. En lecsepultem [ R.L. Mandock megoldasi kiserletet: "Igazan elvarhato, hogy Krisztus [ halalara emlekezve a hivok teljesitsek ezt a minimalis bunbanati [ kovetelmenyt" es "aki tehat nem bojtol penteken, az az Egyhazzal [ fordul szembe, amely ugy dontott, hogy bojtol penteken". A fari- [ zeusokra utaltam, akik szinten ilyen parancsolatok szazaival vetet- [ tek keseru szolgasagra az Isten nepet annak idejen, es a kegyesseg [ alcaja moge rejtozkodtek. A temat a levelezes soran nem targyaltuk. Well what is sad abou this whole mess is that you are making rebutes to people who may be Catholic but they are somewhta limited in their understanding of why it is the One True Church, something protesters may and do find dishearting and discontenting and spend much time trying to persuade as many as possible of the misinterpretations with which they have deceived so many. The Church has never stood up and said that all its members(some even in very important positions) are perfect. If you believe that the Church can be imperfect when it relates to dogmatic indication, then truly the scripture has failed us, for we are told the gates of hell will not prevail. If you have any falsehood in the realms of dogmatic beliefs(ie the magisterium) then you have found yourself inside hells walls. We in the Church have been previously warned of false christs and false teachers. The Apostles doing as Christ commanded them after His resurrection, left behind bishops who if they should fall asleep should be succeeded by able men to the end of time, so that in no way may the devil out wit us. To validify this look into the letter of Clement (also spoken of in the letters of St. Paul as a fellow worker) to the Corinthians. The problem with protesters is that they seem to think that the bible gives the Church authority, but this is an untruth, the Church gives the bible its authority. IN the early days of christianity, many letters of St. Clement and St. Ignatius and many others were considered canonical, and only until 1546 did we e;o eliminate some of these books. These books are actually still consider such, but for reasons of clarity and reasonableness, they have been removed from the printed versions of the Catholic bible recently. I am sure I have helped you very little, and if non the else caused you to hate us teh more. My peace I give you as I am a poor mouth peace for the Lord. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: True Church >Well, what is sad about this whole mess is that you are making rebutes to >people who may be Catholic but they are somewhat limited in their >understanding of why it is the One True Church, It wasn't my intention. Randal Lee Mandock, whose post I responded to, is a catechist. >something protesters may and do find dishearting and discontenting and >spend much time trying to persuade as many as possible of the misinter- >pretations with which they have deceived so many. I suspect that you have a complex of Inquisition. If you are so sure that my answer was erroneous, why didn't you refute it? You remain in the area of generalities. Nothing specific did you write to prove that I'm wrong. >The Church has never stood up and said that all its members (some even >in very important positions) are perfect. Because the Catholic Church remained realistic and aware of her own defects. A praiseworthy decision. >If you believe that the Church can be imperfect when it relates to dogmatic >indication, then truly the scripture has failed us, for we are told the gates >of hell will not prevail. Not at all. The Church remains perfect. Those who begin to spread doctrinal error are taking the risk of being rejected by the Lord, thus excluded from the Church. Rev 2:16 etc. I think you are wrong when you identify the Church with Catholicism. You should study the teaching of the II. Vatican Council about various non-Catholic people's different state (concerning their connection with the RCC, which "has the fullness of truth"). >If you have any falsehood in the realms of dogmatic beliefs (ie the >magisterium) then you have found yourself inside hell's walls. No. Then the magisterium have found themselves inside hell's walls. Seriously: am I, Ferenc Nemeth from Hungary, wholly represented before God by the Pope's Teaching Office? That is, do their errors cause my being punished, too? Then, do you really think yours is a satisfactory argument? Do you want to prove the RCC's superiority etc. by referring to the possible damages caused by the Pope's (alleged) wandering away from the truth? I ask this because my opinion, as I'm a Protestant, is YES to your argument. I am convinced that in many questions the RCC erred, and the deceived believers REALLY run the risk of going to hell. >We in the Church have been previously warned of false christs and >false teachers. Even coming from among the leadership... Acts 20:30. Your preconceived theological conviction depicts everyone who dissented from the RCC - as a false christ. But before you do so, please, explain to me why the RCC is the true one. Otherwise your argument becomes circular... >The Apostles doing as Christ commanded them after His resurrection, left >behind bishops who if they should fall asleep should be succeeded by able >men to the end of time, so that in no way may the devil outwit us. Some problems: 1Tim 3:1-7 says that the bishop must be spotless. Have eg. the cardinals always paid heed to this criterium when electing the pope? Of course not. Then, do these cases mean that the "apostolic succession" was interrupted? When there was some debate between the apostles, they held a... SYNOD. This institution is now totally subject to papacy. So, is the Pope the only successor of all apostles? (Contrary to Vatican II) >To validify this look into the letter of Clement (also spoken of in the >letters of St. Paul as a fellow-worker) to the Corinthians. Mentioning great names won't make me inhibited. Gal 1:8. The letter tends to use the example of the Levite priesthood to support the thing which later became ecclesiastical hierarchy. I understand that Clement reached for every possible argument he could grasp in order to calm down the Corinthians. BUT: I believe that there is a one-sided approach within RCism, which views every detail which supports his opinion as the major belief of the Church, and which contradicts it - a heretical, apocryphal opinion of the minority. In our case Clement's aim is to justify the authority of bishops. Don't commit the error of reading later concepts (papacy etc.) into these thoughts. > The problem with protesters is that they seem to think that the bible > gives the Church authority, but this is an untruth, the Church gives the > bible its authority. Completely false. I can refute it... with a Catholic dogma! 1st Vatican Council, 1869-70 The source of revelation /Furthermore, acccording to the universal Church, declared by the holy Council /of Trent, this supernatural revelation is "contained in written books and /in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from Christ /himself, or that was handed on, as it were from hand to hand, from the /apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so have come /down to us." Those books of the Old and the New Testament must be /accepted as sacred and canonical in their entirety, with all their parts /just as they are listed in the decree of the Council and are contained in /the ancient Latin Vulgate. THOSE BOOKS, HOWEVER, ARE HELD TO BE SACRED /AND CANONICAL BY THE CHURCH, NOT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE PRODUCED /BY MERE HUMAN INGENUITY AND AFTERWARDS APPROVED BY HER AUTHORITY; NOR /ON THE MERE SCORE THAT THEY CONTAIN REVELATION WITHOUT ERROR. /BUT THEY ARE HELD TO BE SACRED AND CANONICAL BECAUSE THEY WERE WRITTEN /AS A RESULT OF THE PROMPTING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THEY HAVE GOD FOR /THEIR AUTHOR, AND AS SUCH THEY WERE ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH. Quite "Protestant-like" view of the divine authority of Scripture. Pay attention to the text in capital letters. You should study the decrees of the Church more carefully. > In the early days of christianity, many letters of St. Clement and > St. Ignatius and many others were considered canonical, Oh, were they? I don't believe it. Does Muratorian Fragment or Athanasius list them as canonical? And the famous council of Carthage? Or Florence? I can see that they were frequently quoted, but it doesn't mean they are inspired. >and only until 1546 did we eliminate some of these books. Why? If they are canonical, inspired, part of Scripture, then it was a blasphemous decision. >These books are actually still considered such, Contrary to the everlasting decree of the Holy Council of Trent? > but for reasons of clarity and reasonableness, It was all the same blasphemous, for whatever reason. >they have been removed from the printed versions of the Catholic bible >recently. Thus misleading millions of ignorant Catholics who are deprived of your excellent argument based on this letter, so they remain limited in their understanding why it is the True Church. You should as well attack your own denomination for leaving its members vulnerable. >I am sure I have helped you very little, and if non the else caused you >to hate us the more. Then why did you write this whole thing? Out of revenge? In fact, I never made a sign of my "hatred" towards Catholicism. In my posting there are sentences full of sarcasm - but never-ever did I say that I hate Catholics. Nevertheless, I do hate some of your DOCTRINES. It's because I am deeply convinced that these dogmas are heretical. But everything I did was condemning that pharisaic spirit that made itself manifest in one of Randal's explanations, namely in that concerning compulsory Friday fasting. Citations: The Church Teaches. TAN Books and Publishers, 1973. I'm not your enemy. If you try to pick some arguments against those I have set forward, then I'll be willing to discuss this whole issue of True Church with you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: Re: True Church Firstly you are free to chose whichever truth you wish to believe. I would suggest you read the History of the Church by Eusebius of Caesera. I would also suggest you read the letter of St. Ignatius and St. Iraneus who both use the word Catholic in two forms, one small c for general universality of the Church and Holy CAtholic Church for the name of the Church associated with Rome. As St. Iraneus says in his3rd book Against Heresies, that every parish in the world must find itself in communion with the preeminent parish and Bishop of Rome. St. Iraneus was friend of St. Polycarp who grew up at the feet of St. John. St. Polycarp in fact came to Rome at the bidding of the Pope at the time. ST. Polycarp came to discuss the easter celebration and when it should be celebrated. Truth is always found only at the calling of the Father, the grasping of the Mystery of teh Church is not able to done by logic. In regards to the Catechism, it has always been regarded that those organizations that found themselves seperated from the Church are still hiers to salvation, though they do not have full communion until the Christ comes again or they accept the Truth which is wholly existant in the Church which Christ and His Apostles founded. This particular mystical body is not reasoned as Luther and others have tried to reason. In short, Truth is held by seeking and by the merci˙es s of Him who is all things. My peace I give you........... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You wrote: >I would suggest you read the History of the Church by Eusebius of Caesarea. As I see from s.r.c.bible-study, someone has just proved that Eusebius implicitly denied that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. And you didn't refute him but only said that he put together the parts of E.'s writings erroneously. Quite a non-argument. OTOH, I don't have a copy of his book with me, and the reason why our Catholic Church in Hungary preferred to publish the church history of Socrates Scholasticos is that "he was more critical of his resources than E." [ Itt tevedtem. A sorozat romai katolikus szerkesztoi Szokrateszt [ nem Euszebiosz, hanem Szozomenosz helyett vettek fel a sorozatba. [ Euszebioszt nem is lehetett volna Szokratesszel osszevetni, mert [ kulonbozo idoben irtak. It should also be taken into consideration that E. was somewhat heterodox (semi-Arian) with regard to the Trinity doctrine. I read in a modern Catholic church history book that E. put a great emphasis on apostolic succession, and therefore enclosed lists of bishops of Rome, Alexandria! and Jerusalem! to his book! He propagated mon-episcopate because it had defended the church's unity from the gnosticism and other menaces, and his work was clearly influenced by this conviction. My remark is that E. obviously reflected on history from his later viewpoint, which was determined by the Constantinian era. >I would also suggest you read the letter of St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus >who both use the word Catholic in two forms, one small c for general >universality of the Church and Holy Catholic Church for the name of the >Church associated with Rome. Let me but in: Irenaeus also wrote that the local congregation of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. It's simply not true, for when Paul arrived in Rome, the congregation already existed. Again we see a later interest intruding into the interpretation of the past. >As St. Irenaeus says in his 3rd book Against Heresies, that every parish >in the world must find itself in communion with the preeminent parish and >Bishop of Rome. So when the ecumenical council of Constance deprived three popes of their titles (including the bishop of Rome), it was acting against this principle. >In regards to the Catechism, it has always been regarded that those >organizations that found themselves seperated from the Church are still >heirs to salvation, Then the catechism totally neglected the bull Unam Sanctam from 1302. "Furthermore, We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." > though they do not have full communion until the Christ comes again or > they accept the Truth which is wholly existant in the Church which Christ > and His Apostles founded. A miserable attempt of popes to dim their former statements and to acquit themselves of the burden of their former policy, which included the murdering of those who didn't obey them. >This particular mystical body is not reasoned as Luther and others have >tried to reason. Proof by assertion? >In short, Truth is held by seeking I am making desperate attempts at it... >and by the merci˙es s of Him who is all things. ???! Ferenc Nemeth ----------------------------------------------------------------- 26-AUG-1995 I reason your walk through the valley of confusion and despair at not being able to see the true light of all that I have told you. What I tell is the Truth, it is up to you to accept or reject. The quote you made about all must be under the Roman Pontiff, you have misunderstood what you read......it is a play on words, everyone who is God's is under him in a spiritual sense, and yet physically we are all equals. Without spiritual understanding you can not hope to understand things of heaven, much less the things of the earth, you have tried to reason all this out with your logic and common sense, and it just does not work that way. Waht I have told you I have told you in the hearing of the Apostles, for it is they who taught me these things, specifically St. Polycarp(though not being an Apostles, was himself raised at the feet of St. John the beloved).. What I have said I have said with all certainty, but the belief in what I have told you must be your own, and for that God must be beside you and lifting you up, for if you harden your heart to what I have plainly told you, then surely Satan has his grip already upon you...... My peace I give you......... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You wrote: >I reason your walk through the valley of confusion and despair Oh! Thank you for enlightening my wretched mind with regard to the real state of my miserable soul - in your sight! If you hadn't warned me of it, I'd have believed that my Protestant viewpoint is something we may discuss fairly. Now I see that you really have a complex of Inquisition, and I have to rejoice if you are "only" sad about me, and you don't want to thrust my words back into my throat. > at not being able to see the true light of all that I have told you. Let me tell you: everything you have told me so far is a very superficial study of "apostolic succession", emphasizing the outward act of "transferring the teaching authority" and carefully omitting any biblical reference to the indwelling Holy Spirit and His plan in governing the Church (eg. 1Cor 12). >What I tell is the Truth, it is up to you to accept or reject. Imagine a situation when you are the one who has to listen to and suffer this kind of speech! Would you consider a Protestant polite if he faced you with your sentence? >The quote you made about all must be under the Roman Pontiff, you have >misunderstood what you read... If only you were right!... >it is a play on words, everyone who is God's is under him in a spiritual >sense, and yet physically we are all equal. ...so, under whom? God? Pope? See 1Pt 5:3! OTOH, the sentence is taken from a very arrogant bull which was aimed at some cardinals (the Colonna clan) and the king of France who didn't accept Pope Boniface's absolutism. Check it. Then try to reconcile your limping theory about "play on words" with the historical background. Have a great time! >Without spiritual understanding you cannot hope to understand things of >heaven, much less [than] the things of the earth, Things of heaven? The pope is alleged to be the vicar of Christ on earth! For fifteen centuries papacy has been making enormous attempts at grasping earthly power. Thus they are really far from the position of rightly saying "We serve the heavenly kingdom." >you have tried to reason all this out with your logic and common sense, >and it just does not work that way. So, briefly: you want me to forget my concerns about RCism, submit to a system that is contrary the Bible and meanwhile think that doing so I please God. >What I have told you I have told you in the hearing of the Apostles, for >it is they who taught me these things, specifically St. Polycarp(though >not being an Apostles, was himself raised at the feet of St. John the >beloved).. I've already heard this kind of speech, and am quite fed up with it. You may have in mind his letter to the Philippians, chap.5. verse 3b about submitting ourselves to the leadership just as to God. Then please read also chap. 11. about the ex-presbyter Valens who is portrayed before the reader as a greedy man. It sheds interesting light on the reality of the "apostolic succession". This situation is contrary to 1Tim 3:3 and 3:8 and 10!! about the deacons first being tested whether they are worthy of their commission. The later church history, with an extreme regard to the popes, backs up my argument. > What I have said I have said with all certainty, but the >belief in what I have told you must be your own, and for that God must >be beside you and lifting you up, for if you harden your heart to what I >have plainly told you, then surely Satan has his grip already upon >you...... From your letters I can only infer that you are a zealous and good- conscienced man of Catholic religion, but alas, to that extent that you fail to see the large number of its inconsistencies with the Bible. Your method of debate is characteristic of mine - three years ago. I go to a charismatic church which can be characterized by emotionalism, prooftexting and imbalanced doctrine. I had hard times among my books (evangelical, traditional Protestant, and even Catholic!) desperately trying to prove that "this is mere heresy" etc. And the best argument I could find against eg. predestination was that "it is not explicitely taught in the Bible". Yet it is (Rom 9), and when I found it I gave up. Well, I've read some compilations of Catholic dogmas, but not even one apologetic work. Maybe this is the reason for my treating many Catholics on the Internet as possible apologists of their faith. And when you wrote your first letter I thought that you wanted to convince me with setting forward an elaborate doctrine on this subject. I confess: you failed to do so. It's a pity... I don't comment your last sentences about Satan, because the ecumenical movement has an utterly different terminology: "dissented brothers", "heirs to salvation", "having a part of the truth", "valid baptism", and on the other side: "not in full communion with Peter's successor", "thus lacking the insurance of unity", "not preserving the fullness of the sacraments" etc. But Satan isn't mentioned for politeness' sake. You may disdain these attempts at regaining unity. But I am deeply convinced that in nowadays' turbulent world we need a perfect Rock: Jesus Christ. He is not dependent on either of the denominations, for He is the one to come and judge our stewardship. So regaining unity has a deeper meaning than it may seem: repenting and turning back to the Lord. Even for Protestants. Even for others. God bless you Ferenc Nemeth ------------------------------------------------------------------- 24-SEP-1995 You ahve simply misunderstood the message I sent you as you have misunderstood scripture and the history of the Church. I wish you peace and my hope is that you mind is not so closed that God in His infinite mercy may not be able to break through. Peace......