Christian: Denominations?

Quiddity · May 17, 2006

AlanGurvey said:
He was helping to bring back a church, that was gone long ago, right? Before the formation of the pontificate... ?

Before the formation of the pontificate???

What church is that?

Ody · May 17, 2006

Victor said:
Before the formation of the pontificate???
What church is that?

Catholic church... pontif=pope?

lol... i'm tired.

Quiddity · May 17, 2006

AlanGurvey said:
Catholic church... pontif=pope? lol... i'm tired.

Well you said before the pontificate. Before the pontificate there was ummm Judaism. So I wasn't following you.

sojourner · May 17, 2006

Katzpur said:
I was referring to your statement, "But the Episcopal Church has some books in their Bible that Methodists do not have." The Apocrypha is a collection of books accepted by the Catholic Church, but not accepted by the various Protestant Churches. I was trying to figure out what books could possibly be in an Episcopal Bible that are not in a Methodist Bible. I was surprised that they do not contain exactly the same books.

The word apocrypha means "hidden." Not all of the apocryphal books are found in the Roman canon. In the Roman canon, the books that are not found in the Protestant Bible are: Wisdom, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, and Baruch. Not included in the Roman canon are such books as: Bel and the Dragon, Third and Fourth Maccabees, Song of the Three Young Men.

The Episcopal canon is a little different, although it follows the Roman canon closely. The 66 Protestant books are approved for edification and inspiration, and are authoritative for doctrinal instruction. The apocryphal books, while approved for edification and inspiration, are not authoritative for doctrinal instruction.

sojourner · May 17, 2006

GloriaPatri said:
Well, all churchs are splinters off of the Roman Catholic Church - the church that was established by Jesus and is governed by the successor of St. Peter.

Actually, the Eastern Church would take exception to that...and so do I. The Roman Church, while it is definitely historic and apostolic (and I happen to respect it a great deal), was not "established by Jesus" in a literal sense. The centrality of Rome was largely political, not ecclesiastical. "All churches" did not "splinter off of the Roman Catholic Church." some developed independently of the Romans. In fact, the history of the church in England is not quite so simply rooted in Rome as many tend to believe.

sojourner · May 17, 2006

AlanGurvey said:
He was helping to bring back a church, that was gone long ago, right? Before the formation of the pontificate... ?

This post just got me to thinnking:

If Joseph Smith's intention was to restore the ancient Church, why do the LDS use the Protestant canon, a canon that arose out of what they have determined to be an apostate church? Why do they not also include the other ancient sources of scripture in their canon?

Quiddity · May 17, 2006

sojourner said:
Actually, the Eastern Church would take exception to that...and so do I.

Certainly.

sojourner said:
The Roman Church, while it is definitely historic and apostolic (and I happen to respect it a great deal), was not "established by Jesus" in a literal sense.

No Province was established "in a literal sense" by Christ. Not the East nor the West. But we both know what we mean by the word Church and Apostolic Authority.
You know where I stand, I know where you stand.

sojourner said:
The centrality of Rome was largely political, not ecclesiastical.

I take exception to that. Although me quoting ECF's will launch into a tangent topic. So I'll pass for now.

sojourner said:
"All churches" did not "splinter off of the Roman Catholic Church." some developed independently of the Romans.

I think your use of "The Roman Catholic Church" more then likely differs then mine. I don't see it as just a province, but The Church.

sojourner said:
In fact, the history of the church in England is not quite so simply rooted in Rome as many tend to believe.

Interesting.

sojourner · May 17, 2006

Victor said:
Certainly.

No Province was established "in a literal sense" by Christ. Not the East nor the West. But we both know what we mean by the word Church and Apostolic Authority.
You know where I stand, I know where you stand.

I take exception to that. Although me quoting ECF's will launch into a tangent topic. So I'll pass for now.

I think your use of "The Roman Catholic Church" more then likely differs then mine. I don't see it as just a province, but The Church.

Interesting.

Yeah, I think we're really arguing semantics. While I agree that the RC is part of the universal Church, my treatment of the term RC here is specifically in a denominational and provincial sense.

Your sense of the history of the Church is probably a little different than mine. Whereas you might prefer to think of the RC as the "original church," my perspective is that the RC wasn't the RC until the schisms began. Really, just a different way of looking at the same thing. I mean absolutely no disrespect toward the RC, or it's perspective. Actually, my perspective of the RC vascillates from provincial to universal, depending upon what aspect of the Church is up for discussion.

Hope I didn't offend!

EDIT: Actually, I revere the early church (both East and West, although the West is "closer to home" for me) as my "roots," so to speak. I dislike the mind set of many Protestant tracks, thinking that the Church needed reform. It really bothers me when so many of my own parishioners "trash talk" the Catholic Church. While I do not submit myself to papal authority, I recognize his authority, respect it, and look to him (as well as other bishops) for spiritual guidance and inspiration.

Quiddity · May 17, 2006

sojourner said:
Yeah, I think we're really arguing semantics. While I agree that the RC is part of the universal Church, my treatment of the term RC here is specifically in a denominational and provincial sense.

Your sense of the history of the Church is probably a little different than mine. Whereas you might prefer to think of the RC as the "original church," my perspective is that the RC wasn't the RC until the schisms began. Really, just a different way of looking at the same thing. I mean absolutely no disrespect toward the RC, or it's perspective. Actually, my perspective of the RC vascillates from provincial to universal, depending upon what aspect of the Church is up for discussion.

Hope I didn't offend!

EDIT: Actually, I revere the early church (both East and West, although the West is "closer to home" for me) as my "roots," so to speak. I dislike the mind set of many Protestant tracks, thinking that the Church needed reform. It really bothers me when so many of my own parishioners "trash talk" the Catholic Church. While I do not submit myself to papal authority, I recognize his authority, respect it, and look to him (as well as other bishops) for spiritual guidance and inspiration.

That is quite an interesting take on it. I wasn't offended at all. Your tone and approach is far to civil for me to even consider any emotion. Thanks for the clarification.

Katzpur · May 17, 2006

GloriaPatri said:
That's true. But the LDS church is a relatively small church. There are only 13 million of you guys.

Well, according to adherents.com, we're the 4th largest religious body in the U.S. You started out small, too, but what's that got to do with it?

Anyway, I don't know if I consider Mormons Christian or not.

That's okay. I don't know if I consider you one either.

Katzpur · May 17, 2006

Victor said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Joseph part of a Protestant faith?

His name wasn't actually on the membership records of any church. At the time of his first vision, he was considering joining one and was leaning towards Methodism.

Katzpur · May 17, 2006

AlanGurvey said:
IF i was christian i would have to be a member of the LDS church, thier view on salvation matches up the best (kinda same idea... me thinks) with mine, kinda... sorta.. 0.o..O ya!

Well, I don't know what your view of salvation is, but while we don't believe in a universal salvation for everyone, it would come pretty darn close to that.

Katzpur · May 17, 2006

sojourner said:
The word apocrypha means "hidden." Not all of the apocryphal books are found in the Roman canon. In the Roman canon, the books that are not found in the Protestant Bible are: Wisdom, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, and Baruch. Not included in the Roman canon are such books as: Bel and the Dragon, Third and Fourth Maccabees, Song of the Three Young Men.

Yes, I realize that, but I was using the word as a proper noun, with a capital 'A', so I was specifically referring to the books that are a part of the Roman Catholic Bible.

The Episcopal canon is a little different, although it follows the Roman canon closely. The 66 Protestant books are approved for edification and inspiration, and are authoritative for doctrinal instruction. The apocryphal books, while approved for edification and inspiration, are not authoritative for doctrinal instruction.

Thanks. That answers my question.

Katzpur · May 17, 2006

sojourner said:
This post just got me to thinnking:

If Joseph Smith's intention was to restore the ancient Church, why do the LDS use the Protestant canon, a canon that arose out of what they have determined to be an apostate church? Why do they not also include the other ancient sources of scripture in their canon?

We believe that the Apostasy took place very, very early in the history of the Christian Church, so to us it's really a moot point. As to why we don't use the Apocrypha (I'm using the proper noun as I did in my last post), Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord on the subject, receiving by revelation guidance in the matter. He was told that tha Apocrypha contains both truth and error, but was "mostly translated correctly." The Lord went on to tell him that anyone who was to read the Apocrypha with the Holy Spirit as a guide "shall obtain benefit therefrom." Without the Holy Spirit as a guide, this would not be the case. Other ancient writings are not included in the official canon, but we believe that we should search for truth wherever it may be. We have been very much involved in the translation process of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

Scuba Pete · May 17, 2006

GloriaPatri said:
Well, all churchs are splinters off of the Roman Catholic Church - the church that was established by Jesus and is governed by the successor of St. Peter.

The churches of Christ are not a splinter group. Rather than being protestant, they are Restorationists: Bringing the primitive church back to the people.

Katzpur · May 17, 2006

NetDoc said:
The churches of Christ are not a splinter group. Rather than being protestant, they are Restorationists: Bringing the primitive church back to the people.

By what authority did they do so? It would seem to me that the only individual who would be in a position to restore Jesus Christ's Church would be Jesus Christ.

Scuba Pete · May 17, 2006

Katzpur said:
By what authority did they do so? It would seem to me that the only individual who would be in a position to restore Jesus Christ's Church would be Jesus Christ.

By the same authority used by the woman who poured perfume on Jesus' feet: Love. There is no higher authority.

Mykola · May 18, 2006

Katzpur said:
By what authority did they do so? It would seem to me that the only individual who would be in a position to restore Jesus Christ's Church would be Jesus Christ.

Hello!

We do this by authority of Him that said "...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18).

I' d like you to see also John 17 - whole chapter, 2 Corinthians 3:6-12.

We are trying to answer Paul's call to follow him - "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." (1 Corinthians 4:16) and to be doing what Paul (and not only Paul, but al followers of Christ) was doing, namely "Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence...".

Hirohito18200 · May 18, 2006

Katzpur said:
By what authority did they do so? It would seem to me that the only individual who would be in a position to restore Jesus Christ's Church would be Jesus Christ.

Forgive me for not citing a letter, but I see the restorationists as enacting the same types of changes Paul dictates to developing churches, just on a much broader scale (generalization). If you agree with this statement, then they are acting on divine biblical authority. However, since I'm sure no we won't be able to agree that EVERY restorationist movement was acting to restore the "church" in general, the generalization breaks down, since they would then be the divisive false prophets Paul warns against.

My.o2$

*edit* by changes I mean required/recomended "corrections", such as "kick this sinner out, organize this way, etc" */edit*

Mykola · May 18, 2006

Personally, I don't like those labels... "Restorationist" is only one of them...

Enough for me is to be a disciple of Christ - a Christian - striving to follow all the commandments He has given.

Could I possibly be restoring His unfailing Church that He has established forever? Too much honor to me.

Hope you understand my point..

Christian: Denominations?

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Well-Known Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Not your average Mormon

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Member

Member

Member