The Bible Is A Catholic Book

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Lynn Henning is fine. But she can concentrate on one thing, the environment, because she is not President. A President has to also concentrate on the economy, Iran, China, unemployment. immigration, etc.
Moral values, that is the matter to see as an inspiration. Lyn has something to teach about moral values so let her be in inspiration to you.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Your point is irrelevant in regards to the Orthodox Church.

I don't make rules for other churches.

I just point out that it is a false claim to say that churches that share in the same communion must by that act alone be declaring themselves to be the same denomination/church
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't make rules for other churches.
If you had understood the rules for the Orthodox Church, you probably wouldn't have made your irrelevant comment.
I just point out that it is a false claim to say that churches that share in the same communion must by that act alone be declaring themselves to be the same denomination/church
Except that in the case of the Orthodox Church, it is not a false claim.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I did not err. You are making it very difficult to be magnaminus.

But you really get me. Of all who are not of the same church, we are most in agreement. Correct me if I am wrong, but we both believe in apostolic succession, in the Real Presence, the veneration of saints, in the sacrifice of the mass, in honoring Mary, in a high form of liturgy, in the value of repetitive prayer, in salvation through the sacraments, etc.

And yet you never come to my aid with Protestants. Every time I see your post, I know it will be an attack on me. You seem to care more about making me look bad than defending the truth. You seem to hold onto that motto that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Be careful, my brother in Christ. He who says he knows God but hates his brother is a liar.
Prodromos defends Catholic a lot of times but he is ultimately Orthodox so he is going to advocate his belief.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: charsan
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.

I think we all knew that.

Except that's not true. Many Presbyterians do require that you discuss matters with the leadership before you can be permitted to commune.

Close Communion by R. J. George - American Presbyterian Church
Restricted Communion – Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

And there are Baptists who practice very strict Closed Communion, some even practicing a form of Closed Communion where only members of the congregation are permitted to commune.

Why Close Communion And Not Open Communion - By O. L. Hailey
The Lord's Supper: who should partake?

And in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, it is a singular Communion comprised of autonomous and autocephelous bodies, that's simply how Eastern Orthodoxy is constituted. That is a very different thing than you being able to commune at some Presbyterian and Baptist churches.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
We are the same Church. I can receive Holy Communion in any Orthodox Church, whether Greek or Russian or Romanian or Japanese etc. All I need to do is let the priest know in advance so that he can know who my bishop is.

I can receive communion in any Baptist or Presbyterian church (Just as they can in mine) and I don't need to let their pastor know ahead of time who my Seventh-day Adventist pastor is... that does not mean these three denominations are in fact one denomination.

I think we all knew that.

Except that's not true. Many Presbyterians do require that you discuss matters with the leadership

What matters? the matter of already being a Presbyterian or the matter of already being a Christian?

At some point in the Communion liturgy, it’s common for Presbyterians to note that we practice an open Communion. This means that all Christians, regardless of one’s particular tradition or church membership, are welcome to join us in celebrating the Lord’s Supper. By contrast, churches that practice a closed Communion—like the Roman Catholic Church—require that you be a member of that denomination in order to share in Communion.
An Invitation to the Table

The point remains
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And there are Baptists who practice very strict Closed Communion,

Indeed - some Baptist groups will not allow Southern Baptists to join them in Communion and will refuse to join in communion at a Southern Baptist church.

But by and large I have had no problem attending communion at a Southern Baptist church and many southern baptists have participated in communion at my church.

Southern Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists both practice open communion

And as I stated before -- that does not mean we are the same denomination
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The people you had quoted do not have the charism of infallibility. According to the Catholic Church, the only individual who has infallibility is the pope, and only when he speak ex cathedra. That means that not all scholars would agree with them, any more than there is total agreement among Protestant scholars.

Well-known Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin has listed the verses that a Catholic must interpret according to the Church.

As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent:

(1) The reference being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 does include the idea of baptism.

(2–3) In telling the apostles “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.

(4–5) In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus did confer a power on the apostles to forgive sins, and not everyone shares this power.

(6) Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.

(7) The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained and not simply elder members of the Christian community.

The Limits of Scripture Interpretation

Good Day, Pakerman

I do not find the church of Romes name-it-claim self absorbing tenants useful.

The fact of the matter they may have limits that they proclaim, but hey are thier's alone.

The issue stands the Roman Church has yet to interpret one single passage of Scripture.

In Him,

Bill
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree.

I agree. We Catholics teach God’s truth and we do not deny the Church’s authority.

Well, since you are not Catholic, I think you meant to write “The churches teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof.”. And that is the problem with Protestantism. There are so many different churches with so many conflicting gospels. One says that a person must ask Jesus as his Savior and Lord. Another says you only ask Jesus in your heart as Savior. One says you must be baptized in order to be born again. Another says that baptism is just a symbol. One says that once you are saved you can never lose your salvation. Another says that you can lose your salvation. Truth cannot be contradictory – so all these churches cannot be the pillar and foundation of truth. If all these churches are the “pillar and foundation of truth” then truth is relative. What is true for me may not be true for you. A Lutheran can hold that baptismal regeneration is true and a Baptist can hold it is only symbolic. In Protestantism, it seems that it does not matter, as long as you get your own “truth” from the Bible.

Now, aren’t you establishing a rule here? Do you have a scripture verse for this? If you don’t have the scripture verse then you are violating your own rule.

Again, you use the word “Church” as if there is one Church. But in Protestantism, you have thousands of different churches – each listening to the word of Christ in a different way. Which one is right?

Actually, the apostles proved the message by signs and wonders – especially witnessing the resurrected Christ.
Also, there is a lot of inconsistency between the Old Testament and New. The Old says there one God. The New Testament says that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit are each God, and yet the Father is no the Son, and they both are not the Spirit. The Old has bulls and goats sacrificed, the New says that only Christ has been sacrificed. The Old says one must be circumcised. The New says no. True, there was also some continuity between the Testaments, but if the apostles based their validity based on the OT alone, everyone would have remained Jewish.

Again, you use the Church as some monolithic entity. But with Protestantism, it is not. So what happens when the Holy Spirit guides and enlightens the Anglican Church one way and the Lutheran Church in a contrary way?

I have always understood this. But where is this found in the Bible? Where is it in the Bible that the Bible is our only rule of faith?

Again, where is this in the Bible?


The Catholic Church has the same OT that was entrusted to the Jews at the time of Christ and it was that one which was quoted from by Christ and the writers of the New Testament. The Protestant have the same OT as the Jews AFTER the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

Good Day, Parkerman

I wrote exactly what I intended to write.

If you have a further question about the historical doctrine of SS then open an other thread, or search here I have posted many that you could review.

In Him

Bill
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Good Day, Pakerman

I do not find the church of Romes name-it-claim self absorbing tenants useful.

The fact of the matter they may have limits that they proclaim, but hey are thier's alone.

The issue stands the Roman Church has yet to interpret one single passage of Scripture.

In Him,

Bill

They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.

The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.

Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.

In Matt 16 Jesus scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally -

Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.

Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.

In Matt 16 Jesus scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally -

Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.
Such an interpretation is unknown in the Church until some time after the reformation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.

The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.

Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.

In Matt 16 Jesus scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally -

Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.

Such an interpretation is unknown in the Church until some time after the reformation.

1. Those are Bible quotes not "interpretations"
2. They show what was "known in the church in the first century"
3. The only way we could possibly know what was "known in the church" after the first century is to "Read what they wrote" just as in the example given above for the first century.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.
No, they left Jesus. All except the twelve. And it says that they never came back to Him. Now, if they misunderstood Jesus, why did He not yell back to them and they "Hey, come back! You totally misunderstood Me. I was not talking literally! So come back!". Jesus do not do that! If our Lord meant this figuratively then Jesus allowed all these people to leave Jesus to the ruin of their souls and all for a misunderstanding! Not only that, but John, who wrote this gospel, did not clarify that this was only meant to be a figure of speech, which he did at other places in his gospel to avoid any misunderstandings.

Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.
Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'right now' you must drink my blood.

In Matt 16 Jesus scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally -
Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees
in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.

Scholars say that John was written after Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Since Matthew 16 was written before John 6, it is highly unlikely that Matthew had written his gospel with John 6 in mind. This is the type of Bible interpretation that we should avoid - jumping from one verse to another. One must be very careful in doing this. In looking at the immediate context of Matthew 16, when Jesus refers to bread, He is NOT referring to Him saying that unless you eat His bread you will have no life in you. He is referring to the feeding of of the five thousand.

The Spirit is not figurative. He is the actual third Person of the Trinity. If Jesus meant Spirit and life means that He is only talking figuratively, the implication is that the Holy Spirit is nothing but an allegory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
They do that with only a handful of verses. For instance, the Church interprets "This is my body" and "This is my blood" as being literal.

The disciples in John 6 were tempted to do the same thing. But nobody bites Christ in John 6 or at the last supper.

Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say 'some day in the future' you will have to drink my blood.

In Matt 16 Jesus scolds the disciples for taking the symbol of bread too literally -

Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

in John 6 Jesus says that literal flesh is worthless but it is His Words that have Spirit and Life.

Such an interpretation is unknown in the Church until some time after the reformation.

1. Those are Bible quotes not "interpretations"
2. They show what was "known in the church in the first century"
3. The only way we could possibly know what was "known in the church" after the first century is to "Read what they wrote" just as in the example given above for the first century.

No, they left Jesus.

True in the case of some - but the faithFUL disciples did not take the symbolism for body and blood too literally - they stayed.

All except the twelve.

Yep - the 12 stayed... and did not bite Christ. They had no inclination to think that Christ wanted him to eat his flesh given what he had just said.

61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

not very unlike
Matt 16
11 How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees

And it says that they never came back to Him. Now, if they misunderstood Jesus, why did He not yell back to them and they "Hey, come back! You totally misunderstood Me. I was not talking literally! So come back!".

That is truly an interesting detail to speculate about - I admit it.

Notice that in John 6 Christ did not say some day future today you must drink my blood.

John 6 - "51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread,"

Not "I will some day be the living bread" when "some day in the future I will come down out of heaven as bread."
 
Upvote 0