NationStates

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:What were these traditions that were handed down?

Not traditions, Sacred Tradition, which is literally the entirety of the doctrine of faith. Every book of sacred scripture, the teachings of all the saints, popes, priests, nuns, lay theologians, passed down from each generation of Bishops to the next going back in a n unbroken chain all the way to the first Apostles and ultimately Christ himself.

Is this Sacred Tradition really just believing in His gospel, repenting through having faith in Him by confessing sins to Him and Him only?

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Not traditions, Sacred Tradition, which is literally the entirety of the doctrine of faith. Every book of sacred scripture, the teachings of all the saints, popes, priests, nuns, lay theologians, passed down from each generation of Bishops to the next going back in a n unbroken chain all the way to the first Apostles and ultimately Christ himself.

Is this Sacred Tradition really just believing in His gospel, repenting through having faith in Him by confessing sins to Him and Him only?

No, it’s not just that. And that third one there is heresy.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:Is this Sacred Tradition really just believing in His gospel, repenting through having faith in Him by confessing sins to Him and Him only?

No, it’s not just that. And that third one there is heresy.

What, specifically, is this Sacred Tradition? And which of what I said is heresy to you?

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
No, it’s not just that. And that third one there is heresy.

What, specifically, is this Sacred Tradition? And which of what I said is heresy to you?

Sacred Tradition is everything. The Gospel, The Scripturses, the Doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, Marian doctrines, the Divine Liturgy, the writings of all the Saints, the findings of the ecumenical councils, every Aspect of theology and history that we teach and believe. Heck even the date of Christmas comes from Sacred Tradition. It’s everything each generation passes on to the next. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

And the heresy is the confession to him and him alone. The authority of granting absolution for sins was vested in the priesthood (St. John 20:23). Originally Christians confessed sins publicly as St. James taught, (St. James 5:16). Post edict of Milan, these roles became joined into the modern practice of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:What, specifically, is this Sacred Tradition? And which of what I said is heresy to you?

Sacred Tradition is everything. The Gospel, The Scripturses, the Doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, Marian doctrines, the Divine Liturgy, the writings of all the Saints, the findings of the ecumenical councils, every Aspect of theology and history that we teach and believe. It’s everything each generation passes on to the next. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

And the heresy is the confession to him and him alone. The authority of granting absolution for sins was vested in the priesthood (St. John 20:23). Originally Christians confessed sins publicly as St. James taught, (St. James 5:16). Post edict of Milan, these roles became joined into the modern practice of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

This authority in John 20:23 was given because the LORD had given them the Holy Spirit Himself. Is it supposed that all of the popes, priests, nuns, lay theologians, passed down from each generation of Bishops to the next had the Holy Spirit in them? The forgiveness was only made possible because they had received the Holy Spirit, God Himself, for only through Him can He forgive sin.

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Sacred Tradition is everything. The Gospel, The Scripturses, the Doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, Marian doctrines, the Divine Liturgy, the writings of all the Saints, the findings of the ecumenical councils, every Aspect of theology and history that we teach and believe. It’s everything each generation passes on to the next. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

And the heresy is the confession to him and him alone. The authority of granting absolution for sins was vested in the priesthood (St. John 20:23). Originally Christians confessed sins publicly as St. James taught, (St. James 5:16). Post edict of Milan, these roles became joined into the modern practice of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

This authority in John 20:23 was given because the LORD had given them the Holy Spirit Himself. Is it supposed that all of the popes, priests, nuns, lay theologians, passed down from each generation of Bishops to the next had the Holy Spirit in them? The forgiveness was only made possible because they had received the Holy Spirit, God Himself, for only through Him can He forgive sin.

Yes, the authority is vested in them by God, it does not come from themselves. Christ gave them that authority and it is passed down to their successors.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:This authority in John 20:23 was given because the LORD had given them the Holy Spirit Himself. Is it supposed that all of the popes, priests, nuns, lay theologians, passed down from each generation of Bishops to the next had the Holy Spirit in them? The forgiveness was only made possible because they had received the Holy Spirit, God Himself, for only through Him can He forgive sin.

Yes, the authority is vested in them by God, it does not come from themselves. Christ gave them that authority and it is passed down to their successors.

EDITS made:
I understand that it's an exercise of our humility to confess our sins to one another, but would you say it's wrong for me to confess my sins to my Father and my Father alone? The One of whom can actually forgive me? Or, assuming that all who maintain the leadership of the Catholic Church are filled with the Holy Spirit, am I to go exclusively to them?

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Yes, the authority is vested in them by God, it does not come from themselves. Christ gave them that authority and it is passed down to their successors.

EDITS made:
I understand that it's an exercise of our humility to confess our sins to one another, but would you say it's wrong for me to confess my sins to my Father and my Father alone? The One of whom can actually forgive me? Or, assuming that all who maintain the leadership of the Catholic Church are filled with the Holy Spirit, am I to go exclusively to them?

Firstly, you keep making this distinction about the Holy Spirit which is not relevant. All Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, that’s not the issue here.(though we’re not always good about listening to the Holy Ghost.) The issue is authority. Christ vested the authority to forgive sins with the priest hood. It says clearly in St. John 20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”. The authority of binding and losing, was given to the Apostles and the subsequent generations of priests.

Now since Vatican 2 the Catholic Church has acknowledged that all Christian faith traditions so long as they practice baptism, confess faith in a triune God, and preach the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s sacrifice they are valid Christian denominations, though they lack the fullness of faith and doctrine that comes from being part of the one true Church. So, technically as a non catholic you don’t necessarily need to go to confession, as it’s not part of your faith tradition. However, we would maintain that you should go to confession, for a litany of reasons

First and foremost; Absolution.
But also, penance and personal counseling from a pastor.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:EDITS made:
I understand that it's an exercise of our humility to confess our sins to one another, but would you say it's wrong for me to confess my sins to my Father and my Father alone? The One of whom can actually forgive me? Or, assuming that all who maintain the leadership of the Catholic Church are filled with the Holy Spirit, am I to go exclusively to them?

Firstly, you keep making this distinction about the Holy Spirit which is not relevant. All Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, that’s not the issue here.(though we’re not always good about listening to the Holy Ghost.) The issue is authority. Christ vested the authority to forgive sins with the priest hood. It says clearly in St. John 20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”. The authority of binding and losing, was given to the Apostles and the subsequent generations of priests.

Now since Vatican 2 the Catholic Church has acknowledged that all Christian faith traditions so long as they practice baptism, confess faith in a triune God, and preach the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s sacrifice they are valid Christian denominations, though they lack the fullness of faith and doctrine that comes from being part of the one true Church. So, technically as a non catholic you don’t necessarily need to go to confession, as it’s not part of your faith tradition. However, we would maintain that you should go to confession, for a litany of reasons

First and foremost; Absolution.
But also, penance and personal counseling from a pastor.

What distinction am I making? And what defines a Christian to you?

On another note, there is a particularly interesting video about a man building a cathedral brick by brick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqRT5hKgQ4

It remains me of the slave chapel on Middleton Plantation, but with something far more grand in mind.

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Firstly, you keep making this distinction about the Holy Spirit which is not relevant. All Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, that’s not the issue here.(though we’re not always good about listening to the Holy Ghost.) The issue is authority. Christ vested the authority to forgive sins with the priest hood. It says clearly in St. John 20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”. The authority of binding and losing, was given to the Apostles and the subsequent generations of priests.

Now since Vatican 2 the Catholic Church has acknowledged that all Christian faith traditions so long as they practice baptism, confess faith in a triune God, and preach the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s sacrifice they are valid Christian denominations, though they lack the fullness of faith and doctrine that comes from being part of the one true Church. So, technically as a non catholic you don’t necessarily need to go to confession, as it’s not part of your faith tradition. However, we would maintain that you should go to confession, for a litany of reasons

First and foremost; Absolution.
But also, penance and personal counseling from a pastor.

What distinction am I making? And what defines a Christian to you?

You keep bringing up the Holy Spirit in a way that seems to me like you are making a distinction between the Priesthood and Laypeople, to suggest that the priesthood is infused with the Holy Spirit and lay people aren’t. The authority to bind and loose sins doesn’t come from and an imbuement of the Holy Spirit, but their pastoral authority that comes from being a priest.


And I accept the Church’s criteria for defining Christians.

Benuty wrote:On another note, there is a particularly interesting video about a man building a cathedral brick by brick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqRT5hKgQ4

It remains me of the slave chapel on Middleton Plantation, but with something far more grand in mind.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/e ... sicily.amp
This, I can admire.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:What distinction am I making? And what defines a Christian to you?

You keep bringing up the Holy Spirit in a way that seems to me like you are making a distinction between the Priesthood and Laypeople, to suggest that the priesthood is infused with the Holy Spirit and lay people aren’t. The authority to bind and loose sins doesn’t come from and an imbuement of the Holy Spirit, but their pastoral authority that comes from being a priest.


And I accept the Church’s criteria for defining Christians.

How else am I supposed to bring Him up? He is who He is as He was and is and is to come. My problem with the Catholic church is that I'm not convinced that all of whom make up the leadership are all saved, and there may be many who believe they are. Being saved means being baptized in the Holy Spirit, that of which not all who proclaim to be 'Christian' are.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Aeritai wrote:
I guess it just depends on the culture of the people and the influence the Church has in that region.

Like down here in the South, Baptist Churches are quite popular in my area anyway and in the next town I would see three baptist churches there.

I'm Baptist myself and I see this as a good thing having all these Baptist churches since they fit well with the culture.

That's what I find weird. Much of this forum would be from America which is mostly Protestant. The rest would be from other English speaking countries, most of which would have more Protestants. And eastern orthodoxy... Do we really have that many eastern Europeans in NSG?

Catholicism is the largest denomination in the US, since Protestants are split into many denominations. The poll being 33% Catholic is more the US percentage though (around 20%). In terms of the anglophone world, 33% is probably higher than what would be "representative." This forum doesn't attract evenly across anglophone demographics, however. What traits attract people to this website, to this forum, and to vote in the poll appear to attract more Catholics. Or perhaps there's a lot more non-anglophone users than expected. Globally speaking, Catholicism is about 50% of Christianity.

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
Firstly, you keep making this distinction about the Holy Spirit which is not relevant. All Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, that’s not the issue here.(though we’re not always good about listening to the Holy Ghost.) The issue is authority. Christ vested the authority to forgive sins with the priest hood. It says clearly in St. John 20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”. The authority of binding and losing, was given to the Apostles and the subsequent generations of priests.

Now since Vatican 2 the Catholic Church has acknowledged that all Christian faith traditions so long as they practice baptism, confess faith in a triune God, and preach the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s sacrifice they are valid Christian denominations, though they lack the fullness of faith and doctrine that comes from being part of the one true Church. So, technically as a non catholic you don’t necessarily need to go to confession, as it’s not part of your faith tradition. However, we would maintain that you should go to confession, for a litany of reasons

First and foremost; Absolution.
But also, penance and personal counseling from a pastor.

What distinction am I making? And what defines a Christian to you?

Hello! Welcome to the CDT! (If we haven't welcomed you before haha)

Christians are defined by what we believe. We usually refer to the Nicene Creed as the standard creed of Christian belief. As Catholics, we say (or sing) it every Mass. Like the Our Father (Lord's Prayer), it's amazing to think of the billions of Christians, from all cultures and all nations, and stretching back for millenia, have prayed the same statement of faith to God.

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You keep bringing up the Holy Spirit in a way that seems to me like you are making a distinction between the Priesthood and Laypeople, to suggest that the priesthood is infused with the Holy Spirit and lay people aren’t. The authority to bind and loose sins doesn’t come from and an imbuement of the Holy Spirit, but their pastoral authority that comes from being a priest.


And I accept the Church’s criteria for defining Christians.

How else am I supposed to bring Him up? He is who He is as He was and is and is to come. My problem with the Catholic church is that I'm not convinced that all of whom make up the leadership are all saved, and there may be many who believe they are. Being saved means being baptized in the Holy Spirit, that of which not all who proclaim to be 'Christian' are.

I think the Catholic Church would agree that not every clergyman in history is "saved", if by 'saved' you mean in Heaven or guaranteed to go to Heaven.

Of course, I would say the same of any Church leader.

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You keep bringing up the Holy Spirit in a way that seems to me like you are making a distinction between the Priesthood and Laypeople, to suggest that the priesthood is infused with the Holy Spirit and lay people aren’t. The authority to bind and loose sins doesn’t come from and an imbuement of the Holy Spirit, but their pastoral authority that comes from being a priest.


And I accept the Church’s criteria for defining Christians.

How else am I supposed to bring Him up? He is who He is as He was and is and is to come. My problem with the Catholic church is that I'm not convinced that all of whom make up the leadership are all saved, and there may be many who believe they are. Being saved means being baptized in the Holy Spirit, that of which not all who proclaim to be 'Christian' are.

The thing is, we can't just say that all who are baptized are saved. To say such a thing completely destroys all semblance of morality. To say that all who are baptized are saved is not merely to say that sins can be forgiven, but it is also to say that unrepentant sinners get into heaven, so long as they are baptized. This simply cannot coexist with Jesus's requirement that in order to enter the Kingdom of God, one must be "perfect, as my father in heaven is perfect." However, Jesus does not simply condemn to hell all who are imperfect when they die. Otherwise, nobody would be saved. The Bible also refers to God as "infinitely merciful." How can God be "infinitely merciful," while still requiring that those entering Heaven be "perfect"? The passion and cross forgive our sins, but it doesn't rid us of our faults. God, who gives us free will, has made it so that only we can rid ourselves of our own faults. So how can flawed individuals get to Heaven? The only way which makes sense is the Catholic idea of purgatory. Certainly, purgatory isn't mentioned by name in the Bible, but it is quite simply a logical prerequisite of the coexistence of an infinitely merciful God with a God who only allows the perfect into heaven. If we die imperfect, as everyone does, there must be some opportunity to become perfect between death and entering into the kingdom of God. This opportunity is, quite simply, purgatory. The condemned are those who refuse this opportunity. Those who accept it must purge (The root of the word "purgatory" is the same root as the word "purge") themselves of their own faults by their own free will. In purgatory, the individual knows God, and is by then free of the temptation of Satan, so it is possible for him or her to accomplish this, and eventually, everyone in purgatory will. After this, they will be perfect, and they will enter Heaven. Does this make sense? Even Atheists can be saved, if, upon their death, they accept this opportunity for salvation. Let it not, though, be said that there is no purpose to being Christian. Christianity is a far more direct path to salvation, as it shows us the way to live. This helps us alleviate our faults on earth, so that we may spend less time in Purgatory, which, according to Church doctrine, is not a pleasant place. It also helps incline our souls towards wanting to take the opportunity of salvation, an opportunity which might be too hard or too scary for many of the condemned. So not all Catholic leaders will necessarily be saved, but this doesn't mean that the church itself is wrong. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only one as far as I'm aware which teaches a doctrine which makes sense, given the brief Biblical quotations above.

Ndaku wrote:

Tarsonis wrote:
You keep bringing up the Holy Spirit in a way that seems to me like you are making a distinction between the Priesthood and Laypeople, to suggest that the priesthood is infused with the Holy Spirit and lay people aren’t. The authority to bind and loose sins doesn’t come from and an imbuement of the Holy Spirit, but their pastoral authority that comes from being a priest.


And I accept the Church’s criteria for defining Christians.

How else am I supposed to bring Him up? He is who He is as He was and is and is to come. My problem with the Catholic church is that I'm not convinced that all of whom make up the leadership are all saved, and there may be many who believe they are. Being saved means being baptized in the Holy Spirit, that of which not all who proclaim to be 'Christian' are.

See and that would be an incorrect distinction. This idea of being "saved" in the manner you're using it is a protestant contrivance and not traditional Christian doctrine. Saint Paul clearly says we are "being saved." (1 Cor 1:18) Salvation is a destination, not a beginning. And even Christ himself says:

"“Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. 10 Then many will fall away,[c] and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. " (St. Matt 24: 9-13)

Salvation is something coming to us in the future, it is not something imparted to us in our past.


Now there have been many leaders who have fallen away, or been led astray by various forces. There is no denying that, but the Church, Christ's bride and mystical body, endures such failures and soldiers on. As Christ Said to St. Peter: " And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." St. Matt 16:18.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Having the eastern orthodox population on NSG be nearly equivalent to the Eastern Orthodox populaton of the world when much of the world's orthodox doesn't speak English, and having it be 10 times the amount of the US Eastern Orthodox percentage still seems odd.

You mean percentage, I assume, rather than 'population'?

I can assure you that the Eastern Orthodox population on NSG is nowhere near the global population of Eastern Orthodox; not unless there are 250 million Orthodox Christians in NSG.

If there are, most of them must be chronic lurkers, and our user metric figures are very, very wrong.

The Archregimancy wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Having the eastern orthodox population on NSG be nearly equivalent to the Eastern Orthodox populaton of the world when much of the world's orthodox doesn't speak English, and having it be 10 times the amount of the US Eastern Orthodox percentage still seems odd.

You mean percentage, I assume, rather than 'population'?

I can assure you that the Eastern Orthodox population on NSG is nowhere near the global population of Eastern Orthodox; not unless there are 250 million Orthodox Christians in NSG.

If there are, most of them must be chronic lurkers, and our user metric figures are very, very wrong.

Yes, I mean percentage.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:That's what I find weird. Much of this forum would be from America which is mostly Protestant. The rest would be from other English speaking countries, most of which would have more Protestants. And eastern orthodoxy... Do we really have that many eastern Europeans in NSG?

English is a widely taught second language, you don't need to be from an anglophone country to know how to speak english.

The assumption of this forum being mostly american, and if not, only from other english speaking countries, is a wrong assumption, and it's what is causing you confusion.

Aeritai wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:We worship Jesus very differently; and have different doctrines...Unlike the Low Church Protestants, for example, the Catholics and Orthodox (both eastern and Oriental) the Church is One; all the others are simply sects. The controversy becomes Who the Church is.

I just wish we didn't have any of this controversy in the first place. We're all brothers and sisters aren't we?

That's problematic, cause if the word of God is absolute, it can't also be opinable, and substantially change or made anew with any new sect or branch popping up.

Saying everyone can have their own personal doctrine, means there is no universal message, it downgrades the christian message to just personal beliefs, which is the same as saying there is no message over the wills of humans. Just moral anarchy. Or amorality. (or amorality and relativism as justifications to be immoral)

Benuty wrote:On another note, there is a particularly interesting video about a man building a cathedral brick by brick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNqRT5hKgQ4

It remains me of the slave chapel on Middleton Plantation, but with something far more grand in mind.

That old guy is amazing. And a madman for what concerns safety regulations

I cracked up when he started to rant againts angles while talking with a architect.
"angles, acute angles, sharp corners, they're from the devil, the circle is god's"
"corners must be removed. they're from the devil - and ugly!"

Salus Maior wrote:

Ndaku wrote:How else am I supposed to bring Him up? He is who He is as He was and is and is to come. My problem with the Catholic church is that I'm not convinced that all of whom make up the leadership are all saved, and there may be many who believe they are. Being saved means being baptized in the Holy Spirit, that of which not all who proclaim to be 'Christian' are.

I think the Catholic Church would agree that not every clergyman in history is "saved", if by 'saved' you mean in Heaven or guaranteed to go to Heaven.

Of course, I would say the same of any Church leader.

A tree is known by its fruit.

Tarsonis wrote:

Ndaku wrote:How else am I supposed to bring Him up? He is who He is as He was and is and is to come. My problem with the Catholic church is that I'm not convinced that all of whom make up the leadership are all saved, and there may be many who believe they are. Being saved means being baptized in the Holy Spirit, that of which not all who proclaim to be 'Christian' are.

See and that would be an incorrect distinction. This idea of being "saved" in the manner you're using it is a protestant contrivance and not traditional Christian doctrine. Saint Paul clearly says we are "being saved." (1 Cor 1:18) Salvation is a destination, not a beginning. And even Christ himself says:

"“Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. 10 Then many will fall away,[c] and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. " (St. Matt 24: 9-13)

Salvation is something coming to us in the future, it is not something imparted to us in our past.


Now there have been many leaders who have fallen away, or been led astray by various forces. There is no denying that, but the Church, Christ's bride and mystical body, endures such failures and soldiers on. As Christ Said to St. Peter: " And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." St. Matt 16:18.

I may be starting to see your point concerning salvation with I Corinthians 1:18 and Matthew 24:9-13.

So then, can't all who genuinely believe and walk according to His will be a part of the Church of Christ?

Ndaku wrote:So then, can't all who genuinely believe and walk according to His will be a part of the Church of Christ?

That question asks the obvious, but at the same time that question can be easily misused.

Someone living the will of god being also part of the church of god, is almost tautologic, as those are the same.

The question should rather be, what stops someone from following their own egoism and then proclaiming to be doing god's will?
How can the will of god, though human actions, be recognized?


There is also one more detail, sometimes understood backward from protestants; christians aren't such because they're perfect and always perfectly follow the will of god, not even saints were always perfect, and if only saints or better could be called christians, there would be hardly any christians at all. But christians are those who love god, and even when making mistakes or falling in error, their desire to love god is unwavering, they persevere in correcting themselves and living on to their best by trying to do god's will.

Which again raises the question, what is the will of god? How can it be recognized?
Cause if someone is striving to adhere to god's will, what that god's will is, is important, or you would get different people striving to different, maybe unrelated or incompatible, things. Someone truly striving to god's will, and someone else striving to error or self-appeasement.


So, the question should be, how can be recognized someone following or striving to follow the will of god, from someone striving to follow their own self-appeasement?

Ndaku wrote:A tree is known by its fruit.

Then Protestantism is also screwed.

The issues faced by the priesthood is little different from issues facing church leadership in general. Scandals have come out in Protestant circles as well (they're just not as well covered as Catholic ones), because it is an unfortunate fact that Pastorhood can attract the corrupt and power-hungry because of its nature as an intimate community and cultural leader.