6 things about the Melkite Catholic Church

[onel0126]

I think this is of interest to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

http://www.stpeterslist.com/7796/6-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[Zguy28]

Weird, I seem to recall from the biblical record in Acts that Antioch was founded by Jews fleeing from Saul, and then built up by Barnabas and Paul, not Peter. He didn't come until later, after they were already called Christians. Interesting reading though.

 

[b23hqb]

Weird, I seem to recall from the biblical record in Acts that Antioch was founded by Jews fleeing from Saul, and then built up by Barnabas and Paul, not Peter. He didn't come until later, after they were already called Christians. Interesting reading though.

You're right. The only thing I can find referencing Peter with Antioch is "church tradition" - "Church tradition - i.e. RCC" - maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34 ."

http://www.antiochian.org/patofant

Tradition sure ain't history. I'll stick with what the Bible preaches and teaches, not by what others want to think.

Another Orthodox site states that Antioch wasn't founded until 300 BC by Seleucus I.

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/church_history/audi_first_called_christians.htm

Again, no mention of Peter. Just Paul and Barnabas. Again, I'll stick with the Word of God.

 

[onel0126]

Now z and b23, don't be completely disingenuous...tradition (some) comes from the apostles of the apostles. It's called tradition for a reason, from the Latin tradere, meaning to hand over. Have you really ever sat and thought about it? I mean there was no new testament canon for the first 400 years after the resurrection, yes? There was no sacred scripture to follow..There was the OT and, wait for it, tradition! Good enough for them, good enough for me! Still haven't found that magical silver bullet scripture passage proving sola scriptura.

 

[Zguy28]

Now z and b23, don't be completely disingenuous...tradition (some) comes from the apostles of the apostles. It's called tradition for a reason, from the Latin tradere, meaning to hand over. Have you really ever sat and thought about it? Still haven't found that magical silver bullet proving sola scriptura.

Nothing disingenuous here. I was just going by what Acts says. No evidence in scripture that Peter was there prior to the episode recorded in Galatians. It would seem kind of obvious that if he had founded it, it would have said that. Instead it says that ordinary laity founded it while the elders and apostles stayed in Jerusalem.

 

[b23hqb]

Now z and b23, don't be completely disingenuous...tradition (some) comes from the apostles of the apostles. It's called tradition for a reason, from the Latin tradere, meaning to hand over. Have you really ever sat and thought about it? I mean there was no new testament canon for the first 400 years after the resurrection, yes? There was no sacred scripture to follow..There was the OT and, wait for it, tradition! Good enough for them, good enough for me! Still haven't found that magical silver bullet scripture passage proving sola scriptura.

Traditions are not the problem. Un-Biblical traditions are the problem.

Here's a good article for you, onel, and anyone that calls themselves Christian (myself included), on how the Bible is the authority on Christianity, and not that tradition is necessarily bad, but that if tradition (both RCC and Protestant) conflicts with what the authority of the Bible says, one should stick with the Word of God:

http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

Only takes a few minutes to read the entire argument.

 

[onel0126]

Traditions are not the problem. Un-Biblical traditions are the problem. Here's a good article for you, onel, and anyone that calls themselves Christian (myself included), on how the Bible is the authority on Christianity, and not that tradition is necessarily bad, but that if tradition (both RCC and Protestant) conflicts with what the authority of the Bible says, one should stick with the Word of God: http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html Only takes a few minutes to read the entire argument.

Sorry, if you have another SS article I would be happy to look at it. I won't click on that URL so as not to put another site visit/dime in Houdemann's pocket.

 

[Zguy28]

Sorry, if you have another SS article I would be happy to look at it. I won't click on that URL so as not to put another site visit/dime in Houdemann's pocket.

I think you have always missed the point of Sola Scriptura. Its not about proving itself from the bible. We both agree that it has divine authority. The point is, and has been since Luther, Calvin, and Knox's days, that the teaching and ruling authority of the Roman church is corrupt. This is due to issues such as the sale of indulgences and non-apostolic doctrine such as the Treasury of Merit and (I would add) later Marian dogma such as Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and Assumption and belief in justification by faith and works. When left with corrupt teachers, what is left? Luther said it was conscience that drove him to the bible alone, not logic.

 

[onel0126]

I think you have always missed the point of Sola Scriptura. Its not about proving itself from the bible.

Sure it is because if SS is not biblical, and as you say it came about by the reformers, then it is either man-made or tradition, no?

 

[Zguy28]

Sure it is because if SS is not biblical, and as you say it came about by the reformers, then it is either man-made or tradition, no.

Call it what you want. I don't really care to be honest. I see it a matter of absolute necessity, not something to be proved by text. You can't trust those who were supposed to be caretakers of the truth, because they don't follow the truth or teach it. I don't doubt for a second that there were oral teachings from the apostles passed down. However, there is no way to know what is truth and what is not by the time of the Reformation because of all of the corruption, both institutionally and individually. So what are you left with? The written memoirs of the apostles.

Let me ask you a question: was the Assumption of Mary handed down orally from the apostles?

EDIT: and here's a short article on SS, if you care to read it. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean/

 

[onel0126]

Call it what you want. I don't really care to be honest. I see it a matter of absolute necessity, not something to be proved by text.

No no no no! You can't have it both ways. Either everything has to be proven/taken from scripture or Sola Scriptura is a big, fat fail! It is what it is, a concept brought forward by MEN of the reformation.

As for your questions about Marian tradition, I know the Assumption is not apostolic tradition. Nor are some others.

 

[b23hqb]

Sorry, if you have another SS article I would be happy to look at it. I won't click on that URL so as not to put another site visit/dime in Houdemann's pocket.

You won't read it, that's your personal issue. Just shows your fear of anything not catholic, conscience, or purely logical. Demonstrates what catholics really know about the Bible, other than what "tradition" or the pope tells them. Believe it or not, the masses (people, not catholic services) can actually read the Bible on their own today, and make decisions based on what they read, not on what others tell them to believe.

Where is your Biblical catholic proof on purgatory, hail Marys other than football, praying to dead people for intervention to God, etc?

Putting your faith in Christ on anything other than His Word puts you on sinking sand.

And as Zguy said, catholics have always missed the point on Sola Scriptura, and until you can see with your eyes and and not what you are told to see, you will never will. There are none so blind that will not see.

Good luck, and have a nice weekend.

 

[onel0126]

You won't read it, that's your personal issue. Just shows your fear of anything not catholic, conscience, or purely logical. Demonstrates what catholics really know about the Bible, other than what "tradition" or the pope tells them. Believe it or not, the masses (people, not catholic services) can actually read the Bible on their own today, and make decisions based on what they read, not on what others tell them to believe. Where is your Biblical catholic proof on purgatory, hail Marys other than football, praying to dead people for intervention to God, etc? Putting your faith in Christ on anything other than His Word puts you on sinking sand. And as Zguy said, catholics have always missed the point on Sola Scriptura, and until you can see with your eyes and and not what you are told to see, you will never will. There are none so blind that will not see. Good luck, and have a nice weekend.

The first part of your response throws every false stereotype about Catholics there is...name calling happens when you got nuttin else.

Then you lost all, and I mean all credibility when you said the premise for the Hail Mary wasn't biblical. Thou shall not lie. Hack.

 

[Zguy28]

No no no no! You can't have it both ways. Either everything has to be proven/taken from scripture or Sola Scriptura is a big, fat fail! It is what it is, a concept brought forward by MEN of the reformation.

LOL. What do you say when an atheist says to you "if everything is created, then who created God?"

As for your questions about Marian tradition, I know the Assumption is not apostolic tradition. Nor are some others.

Then why is it dogma if it isn't written or oral tradition from the apostles of Christ? That's what you always hitch your wagon to isn't it?

 

[libby]

I can't get my head around this. Until the Reformation there really only was what-is-called the Catholic Church. Over time, you say, the CC became so corrupt that it didn't follow nor teach the truth. Yet, it preserved the Bible. The CC had the Scriptures written, translated, published, etc. by priests and scribes who were...Catholic. Then nameless, faceless Reformers may have started translating, publishing, etc. Yet the book you have on your bedside, which you got from Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble or whatever, you categorically trust is inerrant in spite of the thousands involved in the history of getting it to you.
You don't trust the CC because some people within the CC didn't follow or teach, yet you trust the writers of the Bible, not all of whom were Apostles, and whose errors are documented in the NT. After that, the translators, publishers, etc. over the course of 2000 years who certainly sinned to varying degrees, and may or may not have followed or taught what was in those Scriptures.
I just do not understand this.

 

[onel0126]

LOL. What do you say when an atheist says to you "if everything is created, then who created God?" Then why is it dogma if it isn't written or oral tradition from the apostles of Christ? That's what you always hitch your wagon to isn't it?

To atheists I say there is no beginning to God. Of course I wholly agree with the atheist in that the earth is not 6000 years old either. As far as the assumption, while it was only proclaimed dogma relatively recently, I don't know what the apostles or the apostles of the apostles thought about that....but neither do you. Of course I would expect the vessel in which God became man would be revered more than most Protestants. And Luther was on my side with most things Marian

 

[Zguy28]

To atheists I say there is no beginning to God. Of course I wholly agree with the atheist in that the earth is not 6000 years old either. As far as the assumption, while it was only proclaimed dogma relatively recently, I don't know what the apostles or the apostles of the apostles thought about that....but neither do you. Of course I would expect the vessel in which God became man would be revered more than most Protestants. And Luther was on my side with most things Marian

What I meant with the atheist question was this: God just is. Not created, but absolutely necessary. I see sola Scriptura the same way. It just is, and necessary.

Now, as far as the Assumption, what is to stop a "bad" pope from proclaiming something dogma that is not? You do admit that there were some bad popes right?

And don't attempt the straw man with our alleged disrespect for Mary.

 

[Radiant1]

Now, as far as the Assumption, what is to stop a "bad" pope from proclaiming something dogma that is not? You do admit that there were some bad popes right?

The Holy Spirit, and yeah sure.