Baptism is NOT symbolic

[InquisitorKind]

Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.

Bulldog wasn't writing about whether or not the Magesterium is infallible or not. The question was whether or not you have to fallibly interpret the your denomination's teachings. The answer to that question is not affected by your response.

~Matt

 

[Borealis]

Exactly what I meant. The interpretations and beliefs of early church fathers should be taken into careful consideration, but in no way does their belief or tradition supersede scripture.

Who said it did? They are EQUAL.

The Catholic belief that their papal interpretation of the Bible is infallible is absurd and requires you to overlook several Bible passages in order to accept it.

No, it doesn't. The Church, through the Holy Spirit, is not permitted to make an incorrect interpretation of the Scriptures.

I'll find some examples showing how the apostles could and did err--opening the door to the idea that even your "infallible" papal authority can be wrong--and showing that the WHOLE catholic church at that time worked together as a united whole to strive.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

Summed up: tradition doesn't necessitate truth. Resting all your faith on a single human authority can and will lead you astray--I beg you to pray and read the Bible.

We do. And the Bible consistently confirms that the Catholic Church is correct in its teachings.

Jesus always takes children to heaven. Regardless of anything. Would you suggest that an unborn child dieing (by miscarriage or abortion) would not go to heaven? Most certainly he would. Children are the special case.

And when does that 'special case' cease to apply? How do you know?

I don't have children, but I did get married just last week!

Heartiest congratulations to you and your wife!

If I were to describe my hopes for them, they would be baptized around the age of 6. This is an age that allows for my wife and I to teach them about Jesus, and they are capable enough to know of their love and desire to Jesus' will. They will choose to accept Christ. I will not allow them to be baptized not knowing what it means, only to grow up and abuse it before they know what they're doing.

Baptism isn't the mere 'acceptance' of Christ; it is the washing away of all sins, including original sin. Confirmation is the acceptance of Christ in one's life. Baptism is something separate.

one verse? one verse? There are probably closer to 20 verses that say that faith alone saves us, and work is not required. THE ONLY verse that I am aware of that even suggests faith plus works, and that is James 2:14-26.

I can think of dozens of things that Christ said that made it clear that faith alone was not enough. And to say that James 'suggests' faith and works is to say that the label on a cigarette package only 'suggests' that they might be dangerous.

However, James here is not arguing for works as a means of earning salvation.

No one said he was.

He is arguing for "what is real [legitimate] faith?" Legitimate faith is one characterized by works, but the works themselves do not earn you salvation. One kind of faith, mere belief, is the same faith as the demons. These will not inherit the kingdom of God. Another kind of faith, legitimate faith, fills a person with the holy spirit which leads them to a desire to do good for the common man.

Which is exactly the point. Works alone don't do it. Faith alone doesn't do it. Not all those who say 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven.

The works characterize the faith and separate it from a dead faith. The works themselves do not earn you salvation. James is not disagreeing with Paul in Romans, he is taking the idea a bit further.

So why are you arguing with us about it, then?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a "thing" against Catholics. There are millions of people out there with the completely wrong idea and many are guilty of this accusation. However, with the Lord as my authority, I lead my life Biblically, and by my faith I am a member of the true, catholic church.

But most Protestants don't claim the Lord as the authority; they claim the BIBLE is the sole authority. The Bible is NOT God.

I'd quote some passages, but I just woke up so I'll have to jump back in this thread later. Let it be said though, that "Faith +Grace" alone saves us.

No. Grace alone saves us; we are justified through a living faith that expresses itself in works for Christ.

The faith without deeds is dead, but the deeds do not earn us salvation, they merely separate us from the demons. This also separates us from those who idly sit in church and say, "Hey I'm resting secure in salvation and I don't have to do a thing about it."

And there are a lot of those...

The only thing I wish to say to you is this: amateur or not, you have the Holy spirit and more than fully capable to understand and interpret the Bible.

Not according to Peter.

[BIBLE]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLE]

These things are spiritually discerned, revealed by the Holy Spirit, not by a papal authority. They have just as much (if not more) room for error than many true Christian Protestants.

'If not more?' Thought you didn't have anything against Catholics. The Holy Spirit works through the Magesterium to ensure the Bible is properly understood by all the faithful.

Funny about this compounding/multiplying comment. You know, the very apostles who spent all their time with Jesus were not always right--not even Peter, who you must view as infallible since he was your first pope, and the papal authority according to you is infallible.

Infallible in matters of faith and morals. Why do we have to continuously make this point clear? Peter was a sinner; he was also the Head of Christ's Church on earth, the Vicar of Christ, the one commanded to 'feed my lambs.'

Acts has a couple examples of how the church was expanding, and the apostles worked together to decide interpretations and courses of action. Peter wasn't always the final authority. In fact, in Acts 15, it was James who passed final judgment (over both Peter and Paul).

Wrong. Peter made the decision; James merely confirmed that it was in accord with Scripture.

There is also a very high chance that this was not James the apostle, as I believe he was already killed by Herod, but rather, James Jesus' brother. Funny a non-apostle might have this authority.

Jesus had no brother. The James in question was the head of the Jerusalem Church. He was not yet killed by Herod.

Peter was once wrong, and Paul had to confront him about his actions.

That's not faith and morals. So the point is irrelevant.

The early, catholic church (the root of all present-day Christianity, and not the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church) was characterized by their unity, working together and instructing each other. None was greater than another. Yet, their ability and inclination to err and produce fallacies did not prevent any church from obtaining the New Testament, nor did it prevent the church from expanding.

Except that they did view the Bishop of Rome as having authority. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians confirms this.

 

[Borealis]

Bulldog wasn't writing about whether or not the Magesterium is infallible or not. The question was whether or not you have to fallibly interpret the your denomination's teachings. The answer to that question is not affected by your response.

~Matt

It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?

 

[BBAS 64]

Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.

Good Day, Borealis

Believe Paul said that not Christ in 1 Tim.

Chrostyom says:

Ver. 14, 15. "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

That he may not plunge Timothy into dejection by giving him orders about such matters, he says, I write thus not as though I were not coming, but I will indeed come, still in case I should be delayed, that thou mayest not be distressed. And this he writes to him to prevent his being dejected, but to others in order torouse them to greater earnestness. For his presence, though only promised, would have great effect. Nor let it seem strange that, though foreseeing everything through the Spirit, he was yet ignorant of this, and only says, I hope to come, but if I tarry, which implies uncertainty. For since he was led by the Spirit, and did not act from his own inclination, he was naturally uncertain about this matter.

"That thou mayest know," he says, "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Not like that Jewish house. For it is this that maintains the faith and the preaching of the Word. For the truth is the pillar and the ground of the Church.

Which is quite different than the picture you hold to. Who was the first person to write this meaning of the text that you hold to when did they do so?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[BBAS 64]

It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?

Good Day, Borealis

As I have posted in # 13, you are claiming something that does not exist. The Roman Catholic Church has never explained one single passage's meaning.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Gold Dragon]

1. Now that the thief's faith was initiated, wouldn't he wanted to have been baptized?

He probably would.

2. The Resurrection hadn't happened yet. The New Covenant between God and the world through Himself hadn't started yet. Thus, the Church hadn't been founded yet, and thus, no one yet could be baptized into the Church and into His Mystical Body.

Thanks. A well reasoned response.

 

[PaladinValer]

The very fact that the thief would have wanted to be baptized, if the thief were to have known that baptism is the entry to God's Church, would probably have been enough for God. After all, God knows our desires even before we say them.

God knows that the thief, even if he needed to be baptized, couldn't be so. Does that mean God ignores the thief's desire? Absolutely not. It is logical then to assume that God would recognize the desire and consider him as baptized, though he didn't experience it himself. The Grace given by Baptism would be given out of the earnest desire for it. This is often called the "Baptism of Desire," and it is recognized if Baptism is somehow impossible for the person seeking it.

So either way, the "thief question" isn't really a good argument.

 

[Veritas]

I have seen the same thing with large groups of Catholics, even on issues that should be clear within Catholicism, such as when a group of Catholics I used to be involved in was actively debating whether or not homosexual relationships were sin. To make things even more confusing, the priest was advocating homosexual relationships, but I don't take this example as representative of the norm. Your example of confusion isn't representative of the whole, and neither is mine; since I don't generalize from the particulars, neither should you.~Matt

What you describe here, Matt, are people who are not in union with the Catholic Church. They are dissenters. Either that or they, including the priest are incredibly ignorant of Church teaching. This is sadly not uncommon. But just because you come across someone who happens to call themselves Catholic and states beliefs other than what is taught and believed by the Church, don't accept their version for the Truth. I'm glad to see you say you understand the difference, but if so, why bring this up???

 

[Albion]

Good Day, Borealis

As I have posted in # 13, you are claiming something that does not exist. The Roman Catholic Church has never explained one single passage's meaning.

I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of qualifiers in Brown's statement (below). The Church has "seldom" done this, not "never." More than that, he was saying that it has not usually spoken "definitively." As most of us know, that language means that it may teach it as God's truth for centuries on end, but unless it is formalized by the action of a Council or Ex Cathedra pronouncement, what is always presented as the truth according to the Church is not called "definitive." Then too, it was only to the "literal" meaning that the Church is said to have spoken seldom; it extrapolates from and interprets the supposed meaning of Bible verses routinely.

seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture,

 

[Lynn73]

If it's not symbolic, then what is it?
Billy <><

Also, if baptism saves, who needs belief? Just grab people and dunk em. Belief IS required and if a person is baptized and doesn't believe, he is not saved.
Whosoever believeth should not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[Zaac]

Also, if baptism saves, who needs belief? Just grab people and dunk em. Belief IS required and if a person is baptized and doesn't believe, he is not saved.
Whosoever believeth should not perish but have everlasting life.

AMEN LYNN!!!

 

[Lynn73]

It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?

Well, then why were the Bereans commended by being called noble because they searched the Scriptures to see if what they were being taught was so? They didn't go to some Magesterium to receive the truth, they read it for themselves. You see, you are willing to put your trust in a designated group of men to be totally infallible and tell you what the Bible says, whereas the rest of us prefer to compare what men say to the word of God and choose accordingly. It doesn't appear that you do as the Bereans, but instead you accept as infallibe proclamations coming from what you call the Magesterium.

 

[Zaac]

It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?

Can't you go to Christ yourself? Are you telling me that God has only given discernment for His Word to those who were selected as part of this Magesterium? Is this Magesterium a Biblical concept that He said He would use?

Am I to assume that when ya'll keep saying " The Church" that you're talking about "The Catholic Church?" Just for clarification.

Why would you assume that you wouldn't know as well as they do? would a living God limit discernment of His Word to those who are now dead and gone?

 

[Lynn73]

Except that the Magesterium is guided by the Holy Spirit; they are not permitted to be incorrect in matters of faith and morals, as promised by Christ when he stated that the church was the pillar and foundation of truth.

Not permitted to be incorrect? Hmmm, well I'd have to hear what they said and check the Scripture and if it contradicts what I see, then they would be incorrect. God's word has the final authority, not these men. Of course, we differ as to what Christ's church is. Holy Spirit guidance is for all the true church, wherever they may be found, in whatever denomination or house church or building they may be found. Christ's church isn't limited to the Catholic church nor are they the only ones who receive Holy Spirit guidance.

I don't know, it kind of seems to me that any church that proclaims it's leaders cannot be incorrect and are infallible in matters of faith and morals are the ones most likely to be setting themseves up to be deceived because they refuse to recognize the reality that it's possible. That's why God's word neesd to be the authority we go to and the guide to compare everything by. Not the traditions and proclamations of men. That's where you get into trouble and things become more confusing.

 

[BBAS 64]

I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of qualifiers in Brown's statement (below). The Church has "seldom" done this, not "never." More than that, he was saying that it has not usually spoken "definitively." As most of us know, that language means that it may teach it as God's truth for centuries on end, but unless it is formalized by the action of a Council or Ex Cathedra pronouncement, what is always presented as the truth according to the Church is not called "definitive." Then too, it was only to the "literal" meaning that the Church is said to have spoken seldom; it extrapolates from and interprets the supposed meaning of Bible verses routinely.

seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture,

Good Day, Albion

Did you go back and read the whole post # 13, in a later writting Brown clears up his feelings on this issue.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

Now some would suggest that because Mr. Brown says "To the best of my knowledge " that is some ways he lacked knowledge. I will submit that given his years of tenure and the position he held with in the vatican if any one would know it would have been him.

Who was Raymond Brown:

Before his recent death, Raymond Brown was one of the foremost Roman Catholic scholars in the world. On the back of his book Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1990), we read the following about Brown's qualifications:

"Raymond E. Brown, S.S., born in 1928 and ordained in 1953, has been recognized by universities in the U.S.A. and Europe by some twenty honorary doctoral degrees. He was appointed by Pope Paul VI to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and with church approval he has served for many years on the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Time magazine once described him as 'probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.,' and he is the only person to have served as president of all three of these distinguished societies: the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies."

The book from which the above citation is taken bears the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church, meaning that it's supposed to be free of moral and doctrinal error. The RCC never removed him from his office. Instead, he was continually approved by Popes and given high positions within the denomination.

He was with out a doubt the highest level of Scholarship second to no one, with in the denomination in laungues, OT and NT exergesis.


So when some one asserts :

It's not up to us to interpret Scripture; that is a gift given to those who are selected as part of the Magesterium. I trust that Christ will not allow the Church to teach me incorrectly; why should I assume that I would know better than they would?

If the Scripture has not been defined in what words and phases mean in the writtings of the author how can one interpret their meanings. The answer is one can not IMHO, words have meanings the ideas and truths put forward in writtings are dependant upon understanding what the words means "their definitions" that is why the writer uses the word he/she does to convey accurate ideas.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

Exactly what I meant. The interpretations and beliefs of early church fathers should be taken into careful consideration, but in no way does their belief or tradition supersede scripture. The Catholic belief that their papal interpretation of the Bible is infallible is absurd and requires you to overlook several Bible passages in order to accept it. I'll find some examples showing how the apostles could and did err--opening the door to the idea that even your "infallible" papal authority can be wrong--and showing that the WHOLE catholic church at that time worked together as a united whole to strive.

Summed up: tradition doesn't necessitate truth. Resting all your faith on a single human authority can and will lead you astray--I beg you to pray and read the Bible.

You have been misled as to what the Catholic belief is on this. It is not one or the other. Catholics take into account the Sacred Scripture "and" Sacred Tradition as a whole. Again, it is not one or the other. Without Tradition, we wouldn't have modern day Christianity as the Bible you sola-fide people hold so dearly was not even around for 300 years after the True Church was created by Jesus here on earth. To take the bible only as my sole interpreter of scripture would be absurd and mean nothing to me since the early day Christians didn't even have a bible to read.

Having both is better than one, meaning we have the wholeness of the Truth not partial.

Jesus always takes children to heaven. Regardless of anything. Would you suggest that an unborn child dieing (by miscarriage or abortion) would not go to heaven? Most certainly he would. Children are the special case.

No, I would never suggest an unborn child that is dieing (miscarriage or abortion) would not go to heaven. My parents lost a baby through miscarriage. They got the fetus Baptised by there Priest shortly after losing it. Would it have gone to heaven without it being baptised? Sure, as it hasn't lived to commit actual sins. There is also something called "Baptism by Desire." Meaning, if the parents intended for their baby to get baptised but it died before doing so it would surely go to heaven.

But why wait? That is the Catholic belief of infant baptism and raising their children in Christian homes. Bringing them through the Sacrament of Confirmation and First Holy Communion. A baby can't do all that on it's own. That is why we have Sacraments to teach them during their child years and when they get out on their own they will have grown into the tradition of the Church and family meaning behind it. And someday, hopefully get to use another Sacrament: Marriage.

I don't have children, but I did get married just last week! If I were to describe my hopes for them, they would be baptized around the age of 6. This is an age that allows for my wife and I to teach them about Jesus, and they are capable enough to know of their love and desire to Jesus' will. They will choose to accept Christ. I will not allow them to be baptized not knowing what it means, only to grow up and abuse it before they know what they're doing.

Congratulations to you and your wife That is your choice to wait for baptism at age 6. But please respect our view of it too!!!

one verse? one verse? There are probably closer to 20 verses that say that faith alone saves us, and work is not required. THE ONLY verse that I am aware of that even suggests faith plus works, and that is James 2:14-26.

Yes, and I can find a dozen or so verses to refute those.

However, James here is not arguing for works as a means of earning salvation. He is arguing for "what is real [legitimate] faith?" Legitimate faith is one characterized by works, but the works themselves do not earn you salvation. One kind of faith, mere belief, is the same faith as the demons. These will not inherit the kingdom of God. Another kind of faith, legitimate faith, fills a person with the holy spirit which leads them to a desire to do good for the common man.

And neither are we arguing that works is a means of salvation. It is through Grace alone. But you need the other two to get there. Faith + Works + Grace = Salvation. It isn't a one time event. It is a process, and YES you can fall away from it..."faith without works is dead."

The works characterize the faith and separate it from a dead faith. The works themselves do not earn you salvation. James is not disagreeing with Paul in Romans, he is taking the idea a bit further.

And neither have we stated that works alone saves. Again, it is all three and a lifetime process.

Throw them out? Nope. Never. I don't pick and choose. The Bible is not self-contradictive. Catholics are one of the most guilty parties of this accusation. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a "thing" against Catholics. There are millions of people out there with the completely wrong idea and many are guilty of this accusation. However, with the Lord as my authority, I lead my life Biblically, and by my faith I am a member of the true, catholic church.

Don't have a thing against Catholics? It is the authority of the Church working through the spirit of the Lord in the Magestrium. Again, "Sacred Scripture," "and" "Sacred Tradition." Keyword "and" It isn't one or the other. And to have the bible alone as my sole interpreter would be a bad idea since if I were living 2,000 years ago IT wasn't even around until 300 years later.

[size=+1]

"But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."[/size]

St. Augustine...

What St. Augustine is talking about here is that without the authority of the Church, the Gospel will and has been turned into a "free for all, "pick and choose," "man's will" interpretation of "Sacred Scripture." For without the authority of the Church, there is/has been fallacies because no one is the final authority.

I'd quote some passages, but I just woke up so I'll have to jump back in this thread later. Let it be said though, that "Faith +Grace" alone saves us. The faith without deeds is dead, but the deeds do not earn us salvation, they merely separate us from the demons. This also separates us from those who idly sit in church and say, "Hey I'm resting secure in salvation and I don't have to do a thing about it." /{QUOTE]

And you can add "Works" to that equation. Again, Catholics don't believe works will help you any better. But it isn't a one time event as many "sola-fide" believe.

The only thing I wish to say to you is this: amateur or not, you have the Holy spirit and more than fully capable to understand and interpret the Bible. These things are spiritually discerned, revealed by the Holy Spirit, not by a papal authority. They have just as much (if not more) room for error than many true Christian Protestants.

That I do. Actually, they have no room for error as they have the Holy Spirit teaching them. That is the beauty of the Magisterium. Without it, the Church would be left to nothing as man's free will to distort the Truth would run rampant...and has been

Funny about this compounding/multiplying comment. You know, the very apostles who spent all their time with Jesus were not always right--not even Peter, who you must view as infallible since he was your first pope, and the papal authority according to you is infallible. Acts has a couple examples of how the church was expanding, and the apostles worked together to decide interpretations and courses of action. Peter wasn't always the final authority. In fact, in Acts 15, it was James who passed final judgment (over both Peter and Paul). There is also a very high chance that this was not James the apostle, as I believe he was already killed by Herod, but rather, James Jesus' brother. Funny a non-apostle might have this authority.

Not sure what this is. But perhaphs it is relating to how the Catholic Church use the Office of Holy orders in the Holy see.

God
Pope- leader of the church on Earth
Patriarch- Leader of a larger group of diocese with in certain rites
Archbishop- leader of a group of diocese
Bishop- leader of a group of parishes
Priest- leader of a parish

It is the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church. There is more to it than what is here. But this is the basic breakdown of who is the authority. Remember, without the Pope (the leader of the Church on earth), there would be Anarchy which is what has been happening for a long time now.

Peter was once wrong, and Paul had to confront him about his actions. The early, catholic church (the root of all present-day Christianity, and not the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church) was characterized by their unity, working together and instructing each other. None was greater than another. Yet, their ability and inclination to err and produce fallacies did not prevent any church from obtaining the New Testament, nor did it prevent the church from expanding.

True, but the Roman Catholic Church has been the only Church (other than Orthodox, Angilican) to follow and hand down the traditions from that early "catholic" church. And again, the bible wasn't even around for 300 years. So following the "bible alone" is a moot point for me on this.

 

[hoser]

"Again, the attack on sola fida (faith alone for those who didn't know) by the Catholic Church can only be construed as an arrogant denial of Scripture. The New Testament says time and time and time again that we are saved by God's grace alone, and that faith alone is required to receive it."

Once again. There is absolutely nowhere in the Bible that says we are saved by faith alone ant that is it, nothing else. It just does not exist.

 

[Wild_Fan4Christ]

True true...

And, for you sola-fide/sola-scriptura, No where in the bible does it say "...bible alone..." If you can find it, prove me otherwise. But it is false...

 

[hoser]

How do you know that your fallible interpretation of your denomination's infallible teachings is better than those Catholics that disagree with you on what Catholicism teaches? How do you come to any reasonable conclusion about religious matters? Just as you might research the evidence, consult teachers, scholars, reliable authorities, primary sources, etc., so would Protestants. ~Matt

This is simply because these are NOT my interpretations. These are the interpretations of the Church.
First let’s read this verse. “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” Jn 15:26

Now this one. “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.” Jn 16:13

And again, “God did not reveal it to previous generations, but now he has revealed it by the Holy Spirit to his Holy Apostles and prophets.” Eph 3:5

The Catholic Church is guided to all truths by the Holy Spirit. Yes these verses were given to the Apostles, even though you won't admit it, they were the first leaders of the Church. So these verses apply to the successors to the Apostles as well, the Holy Spirit guided truth just does not END when all the Apostles died. It continues in the Church today and will always continue until the end of time.

 

[hoser]

True true...

And, for you sola-fide/sola-scriptura, No where in the bible does it say "...bible alone..." If you can find it, prove me otherwise. But it is false...

Now I can say True true to you! Sola-scriptura is absolutely against what the bible teaches itself. It's funny, to truely believe in sola scriptura, then the Bible must explicitly teach the doctrine of sola scriptura. But guess what? It doesn't. Also, to truely believe in sola scriptura, then the Bible MUST tell us which books are supposed to be in the Bible. But guess what? It doesn't.