A few questions for Protestants

[pescador]

Not only that, but the Bible says nothing at all about computers or Tiger Woods!

News flash: Contrary to Protestant folklore, not everything is in the Bible.

It is the CHURCH that provides the full story (Eph 1:22-23; Eph 4).

The Bible is the written Word of God and contains everything necessary to be a part of the Body of Christ. All the add-ons of the Catholic church are just that.

"Now may the God of peace himself make you completely holy and may your spirit and soul and body be kept entirely blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:23

"So he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. [Jesus] He has no need to do every day what those priests do, to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people, since he did this in offering himself once for all. For the law appoints as high priests men subject to weakness, but the word of solemn affirmation that came after the law appoints a son made perfect forever." Hebrews 7:25-28

 

[Buzzard3]

This sounds to me like sophistry: their personal opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with Pope's Infallible declarations.

You don't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility either.

Guess what? A Pope can be the worst sinner on earth and still be "infallible" - ie, the Holy Spirit will ensure that he never teaches error in the name of the Church.

No person, Pope or otherwise, is now and never has been infallible

Incorrect. All the various writers of the books of the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibly write God's word. Likewise, all the Prophets were guided by the HS to infallibly speak God's word.

The doctrine of papal infallibility, the Latin phrase ex cathedra (literally, "from the chair"), was proclaimed by Pius IX in 1870 as meaning "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, [the Bishop of Rome] defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

That raises the question: what about papal declarations prior to 1870? Were the doctrines proclaimed prior to 1870 fallible?

All Popes - from Peter the apostle to Francis today - have been infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[renniks]

I am not aware of any Roman Catholic doctrines directly contrary to Scripture.

I am aware that a bunch of them are contrary to scripture.

 

[Buzzard3]

The Bible is the written Word of God and contains everything necessary to be a part of the Body of Christ. All the add-ons of the Catholic church are just that.

"Now may the God of peace himself make you completely holy and may your spirit and soul and body be kept entirely blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:23

"So he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. For it is indeed fitting for us to have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, separate from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. [Jesus] He has no need to do every day what those priests do, to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for the sins of the people, since he did this in offering himself once for all. For the law appoints as high priests men subject to weakness, but the word of solemn affirmation that came after the law appoints a son made perfect forever." Hebrews 7:25-28

The passages you quote seem to say nothing at all to support your claim that the Bible contains everything necessary to be a Christian.

 

[Buzzard3]

I am aware that a bunch of them are contrary to scripture.

That would be bcoz your understanding of Scripture is flawed.

 

[Albion]

I am aware that a bunch of them are contrary to scripture.

I cannot find any scriptural basis for the Assumption of Mary, now a must-believe dogma of the church. Or for Transubstantiation, as opposed to Real Presence.

 

[Buzzard3]

I cannot find any scriptural basis for the Assumption of Mary, now a must-believe dogma of the church. Or for Transubstantiation, as opposed to Real Presence.

My understanding is that the former is derived from Tradition; the latter (Transubstantiation) is supported by Scripture.

It is also my understanding that, since the Church is the "fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23), the Church doesn't need Scripture to support an infallible doctrine.

 

[Buzzard3]

Post deleted.

 

[pescador]

You don't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility either.

Guess what? A Pope can be the worst sinner on earth and still be "infallible" - ie, the Holy Spirit will ensure that he never teaches error in the name of the Church.

Incorrect. All the various writers of the books of the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit to infallibly write God's word. Likewise, all the Prophets were guided by the HS to infallibly speak God's word.

All Popes - from Peter the apostle to Francis today - have been infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

You wrote that the Holy Spirit will ensure that he [the Pope] never teaches error in the name of the Church. The Pope and the Catholic church has been in error many, many times throughout its history. It became so bad that Martin Luther, led by God, found it necessary to break from the Catholic church and bring the Body of Christ back into alignment with God's (infallible) written word -- the Bible -- and His living Word: Jesus Christ.

The Catholic "church" is just one denomination, nothing more. It believes that its doctrine is right, but so does every other denomination. There is only one truth: Jesus Christ.

"Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." " John 14:6 Not the Catholic denomination or its teachings (or any other denomination).

As far as infallibility, sola scriptura.

 

[pescador]

My understanding is that the former is derived from Tradition; the latter (Transubstantiation) is supported by Scripture.

It is also my understanding that, since the Church is the "fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23), the Church doesn't need Scripture to support an infallible doctrine.

Since you quote the Bible as the basis for your statement, you are self-contradictory.

 

[Valletta]

Minor nitpick: Catholic actually means “According to the Whole.”

There is a record of Jesus saying that the keys were given to Peter.

There is no record of Jesus creating the Papacy, of Peter being considered a Pope in his own lifetime, or that 200 or so other men coming after him get to be Popes as well.

And that's to say nothing of the way that "keys" got to be defined, several hundred years later, and by only the Western portion of the Christian church, as referring to what's called "Papal Supremacy."

Jesus used words paralleling those in Isaiah 22:22, as would be recognized by Jews who knew their Holy Scripture.

 

[Albion]

My understanding is that the former is derived from Tradition; the latter (Transubstantiation) is supported by Scripture.

The former is claimed as having derived from Tradition, but it didn't. It doesn't fulfill the requirements of Tradition, and this belief developed only after various legends about her grave being empty surfaced and then the idea was just a guess of an explanation anyway.

And Transubstantiation is not supported by Scripture in the least, although Real Presence has a Scriptural basis. Many people think Transubstantiation is just a form of Real Presence, so that can confuse the issue.

It is also my understanding that, since the Church is the "fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23), the Church doesn't need Scripture to support an infallible doctrine.

That could be said, but it's not what we are discussing here at present. The issue concerned whether or not there is SCRIPTURAL proof for all such doctrines. That's shown by the following posts from earlier in this thread--

I am aware that a bunch of them are contrary to scripture.

That would be bcoz your understanding of Scripture is flawed.

 

[timothyu]

The book of Revelation tells us the Ark of His Covenant was seen bodily in Heaven. The Ark is a Woman clothed with the sun.

Seems logical then with the ark representing woman and Mary giving birth to a movement, having played her role that it would mean that as the movement moved forward post Jesus that the Magdalene would have been foremost in carrying on the Gospel of the Kingdom. Be she seems to have been written out.

 

[Valletta]

You wrote that the Holy Spirit will ensure that he [the Pope] never teaches error in the name of the Church. The Pope and the Catholic church has been in error many, many times throughout its history. It became so bad that Martin Luther, led by God, found it necessary to break from the Catholic church and bring the Body of Christ back into alignment with God's (infallible) written word -- the Bible -- and His living Word: Jesus Christ.

The Catholic "church" is just one denomination, nothing more. It believes that its doctrine is right, but so does every other denomination. There is only one truth: Jesus Christ.

"Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." " John 14:6 Not the Catholic denomination or its teachings (or any other denomination).

As far as infallibility, sola scriptura.

Now Luther was able to get only some, but not all of the books, he wanted dropped from the Protestant version of the Bible. He also tried to get the word "alone" permanently inserted next to "faith" but was unsuccessful.
The part of the Catholic Church on earth is made up of sinners so it should be no surprise that there are errors. However Catholics believe that Catholic dogma is infallible, that God has preserved such truths in the Church rather than in Luther. There was nothing foretold by God, within or outside of the Bible, about a Catholic priest revolting against Christ's Church almost 1500 years later and bringing "the Body of Christ back into alignment with God's (infallible) written word."

 

[Albion]

Jesus used words paralleling those in Isaiah 22:22, as would be recognized by Jews who knew their Holy Scripture.

That's the usual claim, but the two are not parallel to each other, either in the authority that was given to the respective persons or in what was given.

 

[Buzzard3]

Since you quote the Bible as the basis for your statement, you are self-contradictory.

Huh?

 

[Valletta]

That's the usual claim, but the two are not parallel to each other, either in the authority that was given to the respective persons or in what was given.

The wording is quite parallel, it was no accidental wording by Jesus.

 

[Buzzard3]

Since you quote the Bible as the basis for your statement, you are self-contradictory.

The CHURCH is the basis for my statement, not the Bible.

 

[Albion]

The wording is quite parallel, it was no accidental wording by Jesus.

No, the wording is not.

And you are merely guessing at the meaning you want Jesus to have intended.

 

[timothyu]

It sounds like you are yet another Protestant who doesn't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility

Why would there be a need to. Even the Orthodox do not.