Catholic defense

[Lynn73]

That's easy, we know that your church is not the Church because we have a Bible. We know that Luther was more right because we have a Bible. If you could have got rid of the Book you would have maybe more to stand on.

Amen!

 

[Blank123]

Ok, I asked about plagerizing.

plagiarizing?

Since the Epistles are written for the One Church Christ created, and His Apostles wrote for the Church, then all other christian denominations MUST remove the Epistles, because the scripture was 'stolen' by Luther and used in a manner that it was not meant to be used. OUTSIDE of the Church.

you need to substantiate these claims.

also where in the Bible does it say that Scripture cannot be used or read by those outside of the church?

No one here has kept the oral, except Catholicism...which altho the name misleads ppl...it is called Tradition. Which means something that is done without change.

putting aside the fact that you have not substantiated that Catholic tradition has any Biblical Basis I believe that there are Anglican churches who hold to tradition as well as Eastern Orthodox churches. What makes the Roman Catholic church 'more true' than these two organisations?

AND again, the scripture does NOT state that ONLY scripture is necessary. So this argues against sola scriptura.
And those who claim sola sciptura are not adhering to scripture itself.

than those silly Bereans were just wasting their time

I pointed it out b4, and continue to request what all Jesus taught the Apostles for the 40 days and nights He remained with them b4 ascending.

NONE of what Jesus taught was written down. I believe He made sure that the Apostles would not write them...because He has and would always test humanity.

But the Apostles kept all of it, and taught their "heirarchy"...Which BTW deacons, bishops and elders aka priests are indeed mentioned within the canon and epistles handed down for Christ's Church.

Sooo Christ wanted us to be able to have some of His teachings for what purpose? To ensure that what our pastors were telling us correct?

Obviously God made sure that what we needed was recorded in Scripture. If its not recorded then we have no verifiable proof Christ ever taught it and really becomes no more than hearsay.

BTW where is this hierarchy exactly? The offices are there yes, but how was this set up? I don't see any offices held up above another.

DO we actually think the Lord wanted a division??

yes...




18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. - 1 Cor 11:18-19

YES, we are supposed to HUMBLE ourselves and worship God and remain within the walls of the ONE CHURCH CHRIST built.

where does it say in the Bible that Christ built a physical church?

When has God become a democracy?

who said anything about God being a democracy?

After umpteen thousand split opinions, ppl are now taking it upon themselves to give interpretation that suits them...vs what God stated.

okay... and? all this proves is that people have screwed up in interpreting the Bible... how do you know the Roman Catholic church hasn't also done this?

Test of the first Church; It has been intact for as long as it has stood. It is united under one leader, who has the authority to discern scripture, and lead in unity. It is NOT a democracy, and does NOT tolerate anything that is NOT Tradition. It will not change. Any past changes were dismissed, and heretics were removed.

the fact that the Roman Catholic church has been around awhil proves nothing. Prostitution is the world's oldest profession and yet I wouldn't suggest that as a career choice for anyone

you also have yet to substantiate any of the other claims you made in this post. what makes the Roman Catholic's interpretation of Scripture infallible? last I checked the only infallible man to ever live was Christ Himself.

Test of the church after; it has splintered apart so many times that someone somewhere always knows better how to discern what their opinion of scripture means, leaving so many abused doctrines now that it is not funny. The church that broke off the first, changed and removed canonical scripture {The Bible even states NOT to do this},

substante please

the second church has caused bitterness against the Church Christ Himself built, and in due discourse, has caused so much quarreling that it caused disobedience to the Church and made itself the leader of quarrels. Which is anti scripture. The second church watered down and or removed the sacraments, until we have the churches today who do not follow the original Church so much so that Christ is no longer considered God. After all, the exact wording is not in scripture...right?

you are making more assumptions that the Roman Catholic church is the church that Christ built - show me the Scriptural evidence.

where does it say we have to follow the sacraments? My Bible only has one requirement for salvation and that releases us from the law and tells me I cannot do anything to earn my salvation.

Clearly Church One has remained the same, even keeping the earliest Church fathers works, outside of canon.

sorry, you forgot to show that the Roman Catholic church was the original church to begin with, so we cannot logically reach this conclusion.

IS pride the reason? Is it difficult to submit? Then seek the reason why...and the rebelousness against authority. Which ensued all the divisions since and of Luther...the fact that everyone wants their opinion received, and the disgust for submission.

How do we know when we are proud?

Are divisions and quarrels good? No, and never. YET today they are not only acceptable, but well recieved.
High fiving one another for the best insult to catholicism...and yet you know not what you do.

I already covered this - sometimes divisions are necesarry.

DO NOT accept strange doctrine. PERIOD!

this is one thing I can agree with

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Lets keep this simple, show me the doctrine where the Church teaches Mary was not always a virgin. What does the Church have to say about this and when?

So, are you implying that whatever a teacher, congregation or denomination teaches is TRUE unless the Bible (assuming that's where you meant by "show me") says it's untrue?

If some denomination says "Jesus was 10 feet tall, had pink hair and ate nothing but raw fish" then that's TRUE unless someone can PROVE that it's not true? It seems to me, that leaves the door wide open to all kinds of things. Certainly, the LDS teaches that NOTHING they say is specifically contradicted by the Bible - and they make a solid case for such, so should I assume that everything the LDS teaches therefore is True? If I say to the Mormon, "but what YOUR denomination says doesn't make it True!" then why not to the RCC? Follow? Remember, I didn't say the Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is untrue, I just say it's not taught in the Bible - my norma normans, and therefore, I don't consider it Doctrine.


As I said, IF you assume that the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints is in fact a political, physical, institutional denomination - and it's YOURS (not mine), and IF you assume that there was some mysterious corpus of Doctrine which the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus knew but for some mysterious reason didn't write about in their biblical Books, and which was told to YOUR particular denomination (not mine), and IF you assume that such is infallible and True as so declared by the Leadership of YOUR denomination (not mine), then your arguement follows. But there are a number of assumptions there - ones not all Christians (catholics) would feel are well authenticated.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[CCWoody]

I think that Catholics should take it away from Protestants until they agree to quit misusing it.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

History actually records that Roman Catholic steel and fire attempted exactly that.

Thankfully, my Calvinist Founding Fathers in America ensured a government that was not going to be a theocratic state, whether Calvinist or Roman Catholic; a state where we could be free to worship as we pleased.

 

[cristoiglesia]

We should also throw them in a dark dungeon until they repent of all their sins.
And if they refuse, we burn 'em at the stake.

Calvin has already done that to Servetus. I think something original would be better than copying Calvin. I think they should be left behind at the rapture. That would teach them. Another idea would be that they

 

[Lynn73]

DO NOT accept strange doctrine. PERIOD!

Thanks! That's why I reject Catholic doctrine. I don't see it in my Bible. I follow the Berean example. You tell me a doctrine, I check Scripture. No match or find contradiction, I reject doctrine.

 

[BBAS 64]

So, are you implying that whatever a teacher, congregation or denomination teaches is TRUE unless the Bible (assuming that's where you meant by "show me") says it's untrue?

If some denomination says "Jesus was 10 feet tall, had pink hair and ate nothing but raw fish" then that's TRUE unless someone can PROVE that it's not true? It seems to me, that leaves the door wide open to all kinds of things. Certainly, the LDS teaches that NOTHING they say is specifically contradicted by the Bible - and they make a solid case for such, so should I assume that everything the LDS teaches therefore is True? If I say to the Mormon, "but what YOUR denomination says doesn't make it True!" then why not to the RCC? Follow? Remember, I didn't say the Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is untrue, I just say it's not taught in the Bible - my norma normans, and therefore, I don't consider it Doctrine.


As I said, IF you assume that the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints is in fact a political, physical, institutional denomination - and it's YOURS (not mine), and IF you assume that there was some mysterious corpus of Doctrine which the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus knew but for some mysterious reason didn't write about in their biblical Books, and which was told to YOUR particular denomination (not mine), and IF you assume that such is infallible and True as so declared by the Leadership of YOUR denomination (not mine), then your arguement follows. But there are a number of assumptions there - ones not all Christians (catholics) would feel are well authenticated.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

Good Day, Josiah

I have had the plesure of reading many of your post here as they related to the Roman Catholic Church, and your comparision with the LDS. Based on that I must ask a question have you ever heard an LDS and an RCC debate...

The Pope said....

No, No Joesph Smith said....

My tradition says...

My Tradition says....

The Book of Mormon reads...

The RCC Cathcism reads...


It is really quite funny... ....

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that we Protestants have no right to the Scripture except that get it from the RCC. I was unaware that Roman Catholics think that Protestants are thiefs for having Bibles. I was unaware that the Bible was not to be free for all.

I don't think this is an official teaching of the RCC, but there are unseparated brothers and sisters in that particular denomination who HONESTLY seem to think the RCC made the Bible - it's their book, it belongs to them. I know, it IS absolulely amazing, but you do find that attitude (rarely). They seem to think that because they had a church council and proclaimed the list of books, that THEREFORE, it belongs to them!

Actually, for some, this attitude has a very practical application. It means they can functionally ignore it's role as the Canon (the Rule, the Standard, the Judge) for doctrine and just embrace as a PART of their chosen Tradition, a function of their Magisterium, therefore functionally UNDER the Tradition and Magisterium of the RCC. So that the OFFICIAL position that the Bible is EQUALLY a part of the norming process of the RCC - EQUAL and INSEPARABLE with their own denomination's chosen Tradition and Leadership - actually isn't so, and that it's subject to it - and just a part of us. It eliminates any possible accountability; the denomination is right because it's right.

BUT, I'd caution you, while such an attitude exists among some unseparated bothern, this is NOT the position of the RCC as I understand and have been taught in the RCC.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[CCWoody]

The Bible is sacred and should NOT be used and abused ..yet it is.

The question is: Who gave Roman Catholics the authority to take Protestant Bibles from us?

Thank God I live in America where this cannot be put back into practice. Thank God for the Calvinist Founding Fathers of America.

 

[CCWoody]

WarriorAngel,
You are baiting the non-Catholics. No question about it.

No!

 

[BBAS 64]

Thanks! That's why I reject Catholic doctrine. I don't see it in my Bible. I follow the Berean example. You tell me a doctrine, I check Scripture. No match or find contradiction, I reject doctrine.

Good day, Lynn73

You are in good company in such a stand...

Cyril of Jerusalem

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)

Gregory of Nyssa

"we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings...And to those who are expert only in the technical methods of proof a mere demonstration suffices to convince; but as for ourselves, we were agreed that there is something more trustworthy than any of these artificial conclusions, namely, that which the teachings of Holy Scripture point to: and so I deem that it is necessary to inquire, in addition to what has been said, whether this inspired teaching harmonizes with it all. And who, she replied, could deny that truth is to be found only in that upon which the seal of Scriptural testimony is set?" - Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection)

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good Day, Josiah

I have had the plesure of reading many of your post here as they related to the Roman Catholic Church, and your comparision with the LDS. Based on that I must ask a question have you ever heard an LDS and an RCC debate...

The Pope said....

No, No Joesph Smith said....

My tradition says...

My Tradition says....

The Book of Mormon reads...

The RCC Cathcism reads...


It is really quite funny... ....

Peace to u,

Bill

Bill, I HAVE....


It's EXACTLY where I'm coming from...

It is amazing to see two denominations, saying pretty much the same things, using the same norming process, disagreeing so much! Both INSISTING, "I'm right because I'm right!" It is an amazing - AMAZING - thing. It's only when they turn to Sola Scriptura that they suddenly find a common enemy and become good friends....

Peace be with you...


- Josiah

 

[Lynn73]

Good day, Lynn73

You are in good company in such a stand...





Peace to u,

Bill

Wow, thanks for the quotes from Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory of Nyssa. Souns like they were thinking the same thing some of us are thinking!

 

[CCWoody]

What you are responding to probably is just a modern example of the same mentality that in former times labored in every way to keep the Bible from the common people.

Oh, no doubt.

The Holy Scriptures have been written in English with the blood of martyrs — if we may so speak the blood of Frith, Tyndale, and Rogers: it is a crown of glory for that translation. At the moment of Tyndale’s perfidious arrest, Rogers had fortunately saved the manuscript of the Old Testament, and now resolved to delay the printing no longer. When the news of this reached the Reformer in his cell at Vilvorde, it cast a gleam of light upon his latter days and filled his heart with joy. The whole Bible, — that was the legacy which the dying Tyndale desired to leave to his fellow-countrymen. He took pleasure in his gloomy dungeon in following with his mind’s eye that divine Scripture from city to city and from cottage to cottage; his imagination pictured to him the struggles it would have to go through, and also its victories. ‘The Word of God,’ he said, ‘never was without persecution — no more than the sun can be without his light. By what right doth the pope forbid God to speak in the English tongue? Why should not the Sermons of the Apostles, preached no doubt in the mother-tongue of those who heard them, be now written in the mother-tongue of those who read them?’ Tyndale did not think of proving the divinity of the Bible by learned dissertations. ‘Scripture derives its authority from Him who sent it,’ he said. ‘Would you know the reason why men believe in Scripture? It is Scripture. — It is itself the instrument which outwardly leads men to believe, whilst inwardly, the spirit of God Himself, speaking through Scripture, gives faith to His children.’ ~ J.H. Merle d’Aubigne

 

[rnmomof7]

.

As for protestant churches, their theology of the "invisible church" was specifically designed to justify and cover for their schism and break-away from the universal church.

We are always glad to claim Augustine as our own

"Augustine was far less optimistic about the possibility of ensuring a truly virtuous clergy and far more concerned about GodÕs role in the sacraments than in the role of the human agent. He distinguished sharply between the visible church, which he saw as a human institution, and the invisible church which he saw as the Bride of Christ and the company of all the saints. The visible church, he believed, mingled saints and sinners in an indistinguishable conglomeration that would not be sorted out until the day of judgement. The invisible church, he believed, consisted of those whom God had chosen to be his saints, not through any virtue of their own, but by GodÕs mercy and grace. God channeled his grace through the sacraments, administered by the visible church. Because Augustine stressed GodÕs role in the sacrament, he didnÕt really worry about whether the human agent Ñ the priest Ñ was a virtuous man. As long as he was properly ordained by the church as institution, he could validly administer sacraments whose real power and effectiveness came from the fact that God was at work through the physiucal elements of water, bread and wine. As WHC Frend phrased it "the church is the people of God bound together by the sacraments, whose head and root is not the individual pastor, but Christ himself."

http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/WNAAugustine.html


A. The Visible and Invisible Church.

In the early 400s Augustine began to develop a rather clear idea of the difference between the visible and the invisible church: the visible church included all professed Christians--some of which were Christian in name only.
The "invisible" church was made up of only the true believers. And here, only God alone, who searches human hearts, knows who makes up this church.

[This idea was quite novel at the time--but came to be widely accepted after Augustine. John Calvin, in the mid-1500s, pushed this concept strongly in his own doctrine of the church.]


http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/augustine2.htm

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To clarify -

I do NOT mean to imply, in any way, that my mention of the LDS is to imply ANY disrespect for that denomination. I do not mean to imply that my Mormon brothers are insincere or any such thing. I happen to disagree with many of their Doctrines, but I do not question their sincerity or integrity. Nor the RCC, wherein I have far, far fewer disagreements.

 

[Deb7777]

So, are you implying that whatever a teacher, congregation or denomination teaches is TRUE unless the Bible (assuming that's where you meant by "show me") says it's untrue?

If some denomination says "Jesus was 10 feet tall, had pink hair and ate nothing but raw fish" then that's TRUE unless someone can PROVE that it's not true? It seems to me, that leaves the door wide open to all kinds of things. Certainly, the LDS teaches that NOTHING they say is specifically contradicted by the Bible - and they make a solid case for such, so should I assume that everything the LDS teaches therefore is True? If I say to the Mormon, "but what YOUR denomination says doesn't make it True!" then why not to the RCC? Follow? Remember, I didn't say the Doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is untrue, I just say it's not taught in the Bible - my norma normans, and therefore, I don't consider it Doctrine.


As I said, IF you assume that the one holy catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints is in fact a political, physical, institutional denomination - and it's YOURS (not mine), and IF you assume that there was some mysterious corpus of Doctrine which the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus knew but for some mysterious reason didn't write about in their biblical Books, and which was told to YOUR particular denomination (not mine), and IF you assume that such is infallible and True as so declared by the Leadership of YOUR denomination (not mine), then your arguement follows. But there are a number of assumptions there - ones not all Christians (catholics) would feel are well authenticated.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

Lets keep this very, very simple, your beliefs and your doctinal positions, are they back up with the Church? If so, lets just take one doctrine as an example, show me where the Church is teaching Mary was not a perpetual Virgin, when did the church put out this doctrine?

 

[CCWoody]

BUT, I'd caution you, while such an attitude exists among some unseparated bothern, this is NOT the position of the RCC as I understand and have been taught in the RCC.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

I believe that it was once official policy and put into practice.

But, even today, granting what you say, it is small consolation to those whom Roman Catholics on this very thread have declared should have their Bibles stripped from them. No Roman Catholic will stand behind the Pope or the Church or Mary or the Magesterium or any other of a host of people when they give an account of their deeds in the flesh before the Lord.

And, thankfully, I am glad that this Roman Catholic witness will persist as long as this thread does. May we all be instructed by it.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Axion

As for protestant churches, their theology of the "invisible church" was specifically designed to justify and cover for their schism and break-away from the universal church.

If what you assert is true, that this came about as a result of the schism.. what about:

Lactantius


"In the next place, Solomon was never called the son of God, but the son of David; and the house which he built was not firmly established, as the Church, which is the true temple of God, which does not consist of walls, but of the heart and faith of the men who believe on Him, and are called faithful." (The Divine Institutes, 4:13)

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[cristoiglesia]

We are always glad to claim Augustine as our own

"Augustine was far less optimistic about the possibility of ensuring a truly virtuous clergy and far more concerned about GodÕs role in the sacraments than in the role of the human agent. He distinguished sharply between the visible church, which he saw as a human institution, and the invisible church which he saw as the Bride of Christ and the company of all the saints. The visible church, he believed, mingled saints and sinners in an indistinguishable conglomeration that would not be sorted out until the day of judgement. The invisible church, he believed, consisted of those whom God had chosen to be his saints, not through any virtue of their own, but by GodÕs mercy and grace. God channeled his grace through the sacraments, administered by the visible church. Because Augustine stressed GodÕs role in the sacrament, he didnÕt really worry about whether the human agent Ñ the priest Ñ was a virtuous man. As long as he was properly ordained by the church as institution, he could validly administer sacraments whose real power and effectiveness came from the fact that God was at work through the physiucal elements of water, bread and wine. As WHC Frend phrased it "the church is the people of God bound together by the sacraments, whose head and root is not the individual pastor, but Christ himself."

http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/AfricanChristianity/WNAAugustine.html


A. The Visible and Invisible Church.

In the early 400s Augustine began to develop a rather clear idea of the difference between the visible and the invisible church: the visible church included all professed Christians--some of which were Christian in name only.
The "invisible" church was made up of only the true believers. And here, only God alone, who searches human hearts, knows who makes up this church.

[This idea was quite novel at the time--but came to be widely accepted after Augustine. John Calvin, in the mid-1500s, pushed this concept strongly in his own doctrine of the church.]


http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/augustine2.htm

Actually, this is purely Protestant propaganda. St. Augustine NEVER made a distinction between the visable and the invisable Church. This is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact. The first teachers in history of this view were Zwingli and Wycliffe.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph