Are the Roman Catholic Church Biblical?

[Jan001]

I had asked for an oral tradition extant in Paul's time to which he said abide in it.

You answered that Christ and the apostles wore similar vestments to the Levitical priests.

I doubt anyone else would agree with you.

I wrote that there were no vestment descriptions for the NT priests detailed in the NT Scriptures even though the OT Levitical vestment descriptions are very detailed in the OT.

I did not write that I thought that the vestments were similar to each other.

These order of Melchizedek vestment details were shown to the NT priests and the reasons for them were taught to the NT priests by Jesus Christ. There was no need to write these things down even though the vestments worn by the priests for the NT worship were just as important as the vestments worn for the OT Levitical worship.

My point was that not everything pertaining to the NT faith was written about in detail in the NT.

If everything necessary to the faith was written in the NT, we would not be having this discussion nor would there be thousands of churches today claiming to be the one true church of Christ. It is obvious that Jesus Christ's doctrine cannot be determined by simply reading the NT Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16
"......our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

The baptism issue was a deciding factor c250ad. The Roman Church left the Catholic Church.

From Firmilian to Cyprian, against Stephen-
"5. But since that messenger sent by you was in haste to return to you, and the winter season was pressing, we replied what we could to your letter. And indeed, as respects what Stephen has said, as though the apostles forbade those who come from heresy to be baptized, and delivered this also to be observed by their successors, you have replied most abundantly, that no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently; when even Marcion the disciple of Cerdo is found to have introduced his sacrilegious tradition against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them. Apelles, also consenting to his blasphemy, added many other new and more important matters hostile to faith and truth. But also the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too, after the apostles, and after a long period, rebelled against the Church of God with their wicked lies. It is plain that the other heretics, also, afterwards introduced their evil sects and perverse inventions, even as every one was led by error; all of whom, it is evident, were self-condemned, and have declared against themselves an inevitable sentence before the day of judgment; and he who confirms the baptism of these, what else does he do but adjudge himself with them, and condemn himself, making himself a partaker with such? "
ANF05. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Appendix - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

You see? Pope Stephen was saying that Apelles', Valentinus', Marcion's, and other heretical baptisms were equivalent to a Christians, such that those baptized outside the Church did not have to be "re"baptized.

Per your words, you agree. You simply didn't know of what you had joined.

No; the Roman Church did not leave the Catholic Church because of this dispute.

You assume it did, but it did not.

This is a letter to Cyprian from Firmilian and it is apparent that Firmilian is taking Cyprian's side in his disagreement with Stephen about heretical baptisms and schismatic baptisms.

[FONT=&quot]"On the point of whether this teaching of Pope Stephen was Apostolic, St. Firmilian makes a telling point:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"...no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently..." [Epistle of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]St. Firmilian to St. Cyprian, ANF Vol 5, p. 391].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, the question of whether to receive certain schismatics and heretics was not an issue during the Apostolic period, and thus there was no specific and direct Apostolic tradition on the question of how they should be received.[/FONT]"

You can read more about this disagreement at: Response to a Protestant Apologist on St. Cyrpians view of Scripture and Tradition

​

And, no; neither Cyprian nor Stephen left the Catholic Church because of this argument. There were many heated arguments in the early stage of the Catholic Church.

And, yes; I am blessed to be a member of this Catholic Church which still today recognizes both Stephen and Cyprian as saints.

 

[Jan001]

I can kinda agree with that and I know the verses you are referring to. It's not all semantics however as an agreement not to change the Creed was broken.

I was not even aware that there was an agreement made that could be broken; although I do know that there have been both politically and egotistically motivated disagreements between the Eastern and Western Rites of the Catholic Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Paul was having problems also:

1 Corinthians 1:11-15
"For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name."

For myself:
I've chosen to belong to the church which has as its head, the one person who holds the keys of the kingdom of God; and I know that this is where Jesus Christ expects me to be.


Speaking of keys; did you have time to read my post which was in reply to your post about the keys?

 

[Second Phoenix]

I

The baptism issue was a deciding factor c250ad. The Roman Church left the Catholic Church.

LOL. According to whom? Where were the excommunications? Who said they left? Only one - you. You are the only person in existence.

You see? Pope Stephen was saying that Apelles', Valentinus', Marcion's, and other heretical baptisms were equivalent to a Christians, such that those baptized outside the Church did not have to be "re"baptized.

Per your words, you agree. You simply didn't know of what you had joined.

The dispute didn't lead to any breaks in the Catholic Church. By the way, the Bishops of the Church ultimately sided with the Pope, not Cyprian.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Let's be clear. You're trying to say two things. One the RC of today is the same as the RC from near 2000 years ago.

Yup, some Church from 33AD-2013AD.

Two the RC uses Tradition which is the same as Scripture.

No, the Church teaches what the apostles taught which became Scripture and Tradition. The bible doesn't say all that what the apostles' taught is in the bible. In fact, it says there are many things about Jesus that were left out.

Obviously, everyone, including RC will disagree with you on both points. For example, until recently, there were no Marian Dogmas.

A dogma is a proclamation on something that always existed and was believed. The Church cannot teach anything that wasn't apostolic.

I already posted the CCC showing that it says there is a distinction between the two (Scripture and Tradition).

Yes, I agree.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

The point is Rome didn't follow what was handed down by apostles.

To the OP, no.

According to the writer, Rome wasn't following what was handed down by the apostles on a particular issue.

The bishops ultimately sided with Rome.

 

[Rev Randy]

I was not even aware that there was an agreement made that could be broken; although I do know that there have been both politically and egotistically motivated disagreements between the Eastern and Western Rites of the Catholic Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Paul was having problems also:

1 Corinthians 1:11-15
"For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name."

For myself:
I've chosen to belong to the church which has as its head, the one person who holds the keys of the kingdom of God; and I know that this is where Jesus Christ expects me to be.


Speaking of keys; did you have time to read my post which was in reply to your post about the keys?

In the late sixth century, Latin-speaking churches added the words "and from the Son" to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.
So what is canon VII?
CANON VII

WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different eteran Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be an alien from the Church: if a layman do so let him be cast out.

To answer your question on your post on the keys: Yes I did read it.

 

[Standing Up]

I am so shocked (not really) that you would say such.

Not sure why. RC readily admits their Tradition is distinct from Scripture. But you tell us, does all of EO Tradition source to Scripture?

 

[Standing Up]

I wrote that there were no vestment descriptions for the NT priests detailed in the NT Scriptures even though the OT Levitical vestment descriptions are very detailed in the OT.

I did not write that I thought that the vestments were similar to each other.

These order of Melchizedek vestment details were shown to the NT priests and the reasons for them were taught to the NT priests by Jesus Christ. There was no need to write these things down even though the vestments worn by the priests for the NT worship were just as important as the vestments worn for the OT Levitical worship.

My point was that not everything pertaining to the NT faith was written about in detail in the NT.

If everything necessary to the faith was written in the NT, we would not be having this discussion nor would there be thousands of churches today claiming to be the one true church of Christ. It is obvious that Jesus Christ's doctrine cannot be determined by simply reading the NT Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16
"......our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."


No; the Roman Church did not leave the Catholic Church because of this dispute.

You assume it did, but it did not.

This is a letter to Cyprian from Firmilian and it is apparent that Firmilian is taking Cyprian's side in his disagreement with Stephen about heretical baptisms and schismatic baptisms.

[FONT=&quot]"On the point of whether this teaching of Pope Stephen was Apostolic, St. Firmilian makes a telling point:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"...no one is so foolish as to believe that the apostles delivered this, when it is even well known that these heresies themselves, execrable and detestable as they are, arose subsequently..." [Epistle of[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]St. Firmilian to St. Cyprian, ANF Vol 5, p. 391].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, the question of whether to receive certain schismatics and heretics was not an issue during the Apostolic period, and thus there was no specific and direct Apostolic tradition on the question of how they should be received.[/FONT]"

You can read more about this disagreement at: Response to a Protestant Apologist on St. Cyrpians view of Scripture and Tradition

​

And, no; neither Cyprian nor Stephen left the Catholic Church because of this argument. There were many heated arguments in the early stage of the Catholic Church.

And, yes; I am blessed to be a member of this Catholic Church which still today recognizes both Stephen and Cyprian as saints.

Firmilian cites Paul's example of baptizing John's disciples

So, yeah, it wasn't an issue in the apostles' time. Rome made it an issue by accepting Marcion's, Apelles', and other baptisms as valid in 256ad.

PS. Have you any other traditions extant in Paul's time to which he says abide?

 

[Rev Randy]

Not sure why. RC readily admits their Tradition is distinct from Scripture. But you tell us, does all of EO Tradition source to Scripture?

No but it works hand in hand.Not everything was penned in scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

According to the writer, Rome wasn't following what was handed down by the apostles on a particular issue.

The bishops ultimately sided with Rome.

The easter issue (1) and other divine sacraments (2). And then baptism issue (3). Firmilian used the first two as a proof of the 3rd.

But yes, Rome prevailed. Finally, however, a decade ago, Rome finally decided that LDS baptism wasn't valid; they'd have to be baptized in the Christian church. All the Roman Church did was finally rejoin the Catholic Church from 256ad on that one point.

 

[Standing Up]

No but it works hand in hand.Not everything was penned in scripture.

Correct, not everything is in scripture, but there is nothing left out either for salvific necessity.

RC and EO can fight all day long about whether their differing canons and Traditions and doctrines and Councils are true or not and binding. There is no 'rule of faith'.

PS. Here's SP:
"No, the Church teaches what the apostles taught which became Scripture and Tradition. The bible doesn't say all that what the apostles' taught is in the bible. In fact, it says there are many things about Jesus that were left out."


Which group got it right and wrong on this so-called apostolic teaching? EO and RC both claim the same "apostolic tradition" and come up with Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
My point was that not everything pertaining to the NT faith was written about in detail in the NT.

If everything necessary to the faith was written in the NT, we would not be having this discussion nor would there be thousands of churches today claiming to be the one true church of Christ. It is obvious that Jesus Christ's doctrine cannot be determined by simply reading the NT Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16
"......our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

-snip-

What was left out? Nothing. But it has to be interpreted. Correct?

 

[Second Phoenix]

In the late sixth century, Latin-speaking churches added the words "and from the Son" to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit, in what Easterners have argued is a violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council, since the words were not included in the text by either the Council of Nicaea or that of Constantinople.
So what is canon VII?
CANON VII

WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different eteran Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII

Any bishop who sets forth a faith other than that of Nice shall be an alien from the Church: if a layman do so let him be cast out.

To answer your question on your post on the keys: Yes I did read it.

I honestly have respect for you, so I will let you know in advance:
I am a former seminarian that nearly became a Catholic priest.
I am able, by training and education, to translate Latin and Greek.
I do not argue something unless it is less than I believe, or more than I know is true.

On this issue, the Catholic Church teaches that the Greek expression cannot be altered in any way. She finds that the Latin expression does not sufficiently convey what it is in the Greek. This is the reason for the Filoque. The Filoque cannot be translated or applied into the Greek because the Greek provides a sufficient expression of the Trinity's relationships. Any such action regarding changing the Greek is considered heretical.

For that reason, the Latin Filoque is an attempt to convey the nuances of the Greek into the Latin. It does not change the original meaning, and any attempt to change the Greek is forbidden.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Correct, not everything is in scripture, but there is nothing left out either for salvific necessity.

According to protestant tradition, not the bible.

 

[Second Phoenix]

The easter issue (1)

That was an issue regarding the placement of Easter in a solar calendar because Passover was dated through a lunar calendar.

and other divine sacraments (2).

Such as?

And then baptism issue (3). Firmilian used the first two as a proof of the 3rd.

And the various bishops of the Catholic Church agreed with the Pope and accepted outside baptisms.

But yes, Rome prevailed. Finally, however, a decade ago, Rome finally decided that LDS baptism wasn't valid; they'd have to be baptized in the Christian church. All the Roman Church did was finally rejoin the Catholic Church from 256ad on that one point.

Wrong, LDS baptisms were considered problematic because they are expressly anti-Trinitarian by nature.

 

[Standing Up]

According to protestant tradition, not the bible.

You're using the bible to prove that there are salvific issues apart from the bible?

Like what?

 

[Standing Up]

That was an issue regarding the placement of Easter in a solar calendar because Passover was dated through a lunar calendar.



Such as?



And the various bishops of the Catholic Church agreed with the Pope and accepted outside baptisms.



Wrong, LDS baptisms were considered problematic because they are expressly anti-Trinitarian by nature.

And you think Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, etc had it right

Stephen accepted their non/anti Trinity baptisms as equal to Christian.

At this point you should read some source material on the issue. In Greek perhaps.

 

[Second Phoenix]

And you think Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, etc had it right

Stephen accepted their non/anti Trinity baptisms as equal to Christian.

At this point you should read some source material on the issue. In Greek perhaps.

I can translate Greek, what about yourself?

Accepting a baptism by an outside group does not suggest moral equivalency.

 

[Standing Up]

I am saying that your views on this issue aren't biblical.

What are the salvific issues? And where does the bible define them?

Oh my. You don't know. Here's a sampling.

Rom. 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Jn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hope that helps.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Oh my. You don't know. Here's a sampling.

Rom. 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Jn 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hope that helps.

These are protestant traditions. Where does the bible say these are the defining instances of salvation theology?