Catholic defense

[WarriorAngel]

True or not, I was referring to your post, not to Roman Catholics in every situation.



Like Matt 16.18 proves there's a Papacy. That never happens, huh?

AND yet I already showed that Peter always spoke first, was referred to as the pillar, and even among the Apostles he was the one who stood up...and all listened.
Also, he was always mentioned first.
Coincidence?
NO...he was to lead. Choosen by the Father Himself.
"For no man told him, but the Father in Heaven...that Jesus was the Messiah."
It is NOT one verse, but all of the NT prooves his authority...and he was the ONE who Jesus said 'Feed my sheep."
IT was a specific conversation, in which all the Apostles understood Peter's leadership role.
WHICH IS why Paul made mention of him standing up to Peter...which was resolved however. AS I pointed out in regards to the Council. {Go back a page or more to see.}
WHICH is the problem I see in debates...the indoctrination is so deeply ingrained against Catholics that the information presented is usually forgotten in one or two pages.
WHY must Catholics repeat and repeat the same things over and over?

Well, we can only go on what happens, not what one poster says might happen.

The difference there is that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, no one else, and he showed by example when he prayed to the Father and no one else. Following Jesus' teaching and example is sound.

NO ONE CAN COME TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME.
So are you saying you can supercede Christ?
Here is the thing...
Catholics believe Jesus is primary mediator, Who asks on our behalf.... {And even if you believe otherwise, even when we pray the Our Father, it goes thru Jesus, and all things must be done in the name of Jesus. }
Now, since anyone may pray on our behalf...all prayers, no matter who prays them...are done thru Jesus.
So if we ask the Saints to pray for us...they are asking Jesus, Whom immediately mediates for us.
However; you are resisting most of the scripture to proove one point.
Which is what I have said earlier...
One quoted scripture, not taking into account all of the NT.

Perhaps because you have no reason to think that they are permitted to hear our prayers. Or we could say that rationalizing is not a good substitute for Biblical advice.

Again, the hand cannot say to the foot, I have no need of you.
Is that over your head? Just say yes or no.

The goods that they passed on are not in question. What is in question is a legend or theory originating centuries later, in many cases, but CLAIMED to have "been passed on by the Apostles." If any teaching was indeed passed on, it would not conflict with or supercede God's own word in scripture, and in any case, merely saying that something not found in the Bible "was passed on" doesn't make it so. One good test is to see if the first Christians beleived it, and in most cases there is no evidence that they did (as with some of the Medieval doctrines already mentioned).

From the top...and once again, Tradition does NOT go against scxripture, and scripture doesnt go against Tradition. They are tied together, and the truth of Tradition is in fact in scripture.......but not ALL of it is in scripture.

For instance...babies being baptized...
Paul says baptism replaces circumcision.
Now do we circumcize, or rather did the Jews circumcize adults? NO...

And the Apostles baptized all of the household... and so we know also that babies were included, since they are living humans included in households. {See OT for that}.
AND then we have the earliest fathers baptizing babies.... in like 110 AD.
Therefore...scripture does back up Tradition.
IT matters most...IF YOU KNOW HOW TO UNDERSTAND SCRIPTURE.
Note; I did NOT say 'interpret'...but understand.

ALSO Tradition tells us the Trinity exists...altho scripture can back it up....IT IS TRADITION that makes it understood.

Interesting is how most non Catholics will bend over backwards to uphold this Tradition, yet it says NO where in scripture the word Trinity. YET, as Tradition is always imparted in scripture, it is not specifically spoken, but understood.
THAT is how Tradition works.

Like ragu....'Its in there.'

Quite the opposite. I am saying that he DID. Also, that we have no need to add to it, embellish it, or rationalize extensions of it.

Also, quite to the contrary. If the church stands upon the word of God, it is built upon a solid foundation. If it or any branch of the church takes it upon itself to add theologians' speculations or human traditions and consider them the equal of the word of God, THEN we have a shaky add-on.

The Church has stood thus far...without changes.
The Eucharist is the same, the confessions are still the same, in fact all the sacraments are the same...
ALL of which has not been changed, thus she has stood the test of time...and the gates have not prevailed.

I guess you've answered your own question there.



That's right. The only question is "what is that torch?" Is it the faith of the first Christians and the Bible truths or something else?

2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

​

That's a complete non-sequitur. If the Apostles passed on ordinationsk, which they did, that says nothing about passing on new thoughts that were not received from Jesus. If anything, we ought to conclude that if there is a lineage, it is constant and faithful to the original beliefs.


If doing that reassures you, I understand, but it is only God who actually can forgive, and that he does for any penitent to turns to him.

There are no new thoughts.
Ppl mess that up frequently.
Councils did NOT mean that they were making new things up...they were setting already held teachings in stone, rather.

 

[lionroar0]

Yes, IF we assume that Jesus founded an institutional denomination

Not an assumptiom.

and IF we assume that the one holy catholic church is an institutional denomination

Straw man. It's not only the Church militant it is also the Mystical Church of all christians.

and IF we assume that ministry is entrusted to an institution rather than to people

Straw man. See above.

and IF we assume it's institutions that love, forgive, care, share, etc

More Straw.

and IF we assume that that institutional denomination is the Roman Catholic Denomination

non-sequitor founded on straw.

and IF we assume that Jesus gave the Apostles a corpus of DOGMAS (things which MUST be believed), and IF we assume they chose to not include these DOGMAS in their biblical writings

Logical error of equovication. The Church compiled the Bible and made sure it did not contradict what was alrady being taught. Such as the Ever-Virginity of Mary, Trinity, Communion of Saints ect...

and IF we assume they instead entrusted this corpus of DOGMAS to the Roman Catholic Denomination, and IF we assume that this denomination has been an infallible steward of this corpus, and IF we assume that the Roman Catholic perfectly and fully knows this corpus of DOGMAS (always has) but other denominations that so claim don't, THEN I think you have a point.

This just shows poor understanding of Apostolic Tradition and development of doctrine.

Not only with the Scriptures (often ignoring much and connecting dots in AMAZING ways), but also Tradition. They CLAIM they are based on history - but it's the history according to themselves ("the victor writes the history" as the old proverb says).

LMAO!!!!! This is such a silly argument!!!! Perhaps it would be more to the liking of some if early christians had been arians, or one of the ancient heresies.

Everyone does this, to some degree. Here's the difference. Catholics make their "cherry picking" hermaneutics and history the 'norma normans' (the Norm, the Rule, the Plumbline, the Canon) for their very own teachings. The teachings of the RCC are correct because the RCC says so. Protestants, on the other hand, embrace a norma normans ABOVE and OUTSIDE of them - the Bible. Their hermaneutics, their teachings, their "cherry picking" is ACCOUNTABLE to the Bible. For Catholics, the Bible is accountable to them

Straw man. This just shows a poor understanding of the CC. As Jesus left a Church not a Bible. When the CC is accountable it's not just the hiarchy but also to the whole body of belivers. The Church militant. Also the Church is direclty connected to God through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not through the "individual infallable interpretation of the Bible". This is not a direct connectoin with God but rather using the Bible as a mediator.

Still another reason to not accept that the one, holy catholic church is an institution but is the whole (catholic) body of believers - we are joined together in a mystical union by our faith in Christ. It's PEOPLE - Christians - who are, by the grace of God, able to believe and love and care and give and minister and worship and forgive - building and legal institutions are incapable of such.

ANd yet this is what the Bible shows in Acts when it decided that circumcision was not necessary for gentiles.

Peace

 

[WarriorAngel]

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.


Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government today, is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH





If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, the Holy Trinity, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth





Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).

He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church.

The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH





Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern—not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul’s example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).

The apostles, fulfilling Jesus’ will, ordained bishops, priests, and deacons and thus handed on their apostolic ministry to them—the fullest degree of ordination to the bishops, lesser degrees to the priests and deacons.

The Pope and Bishops

Jesus gave Peter special authority among the apostles (John 21:15–17) and signified this by changing his name from Simon to Peter, which means "rock" (John 1:42). He said Peter was to be the rock on which he would build his Church (Matt. 16:18).

In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, Simon’s new name was Kepha (which means a massive rock). Later this name was translated into Greek as Petros (John 1:42) and into English as Peter. Christ gave Peter alone the "keys of the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19) and promised that Peter’s decisions would be binding in heaven. He also gave similar power to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), but only Peter was given the keys, symbols of his authority to rule the Church on earth in Jesus’ absence.

Christ, the Good Shepherd, called Peter to be the chief shepherd of his Church (John 21:15–17). He gave Peter the task of strengthening the other apostles in their faith, ensuring that they taught only what was true (Luke 22:31–32). Peter led the Church in proclaiming the gospel and making decisions (Acts 2:1– 41, 15:7–12).

Early Christian writings tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome (who from the earliest times have been called by the affectionate title of "pope," which means "papa"), continued to exercise Peter’s ministry in the Church.

The pope is the successor to Peter as bishop of Rome. The world’s other bishops are successors to the apostles in general.


As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.

Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

Sacred Tradition
Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2).

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops.

Scripture
Scripture, by which we mean the Old and New Testaments, was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). The Holy Spirit guided the biblical authors to write what he wanted them to write. Since God is the principal author of the Bible, and since God is truth itself (John 14:6) and cannot teach anything untrue, the Bible is free from all error in everything it asserts to be true.

Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Although popular with many "Bible Christian" churches, the "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions.

Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.

Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.

We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because His truth is one. The conclusion? The "Bible alone" theory must be false.

The Magisterium
Together the pope and the bishops form the teaching authority of the Church, which is called the magisterium (from the Latin for "teacher"). The magisterium, guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, gives us certainty in matters of doctrine. The Church is the custodian of the Bible and faithfully and accurately proclaims its message, a task which God has empowered it to do.

Keep in mind that the Church came before the New Testament, not the New Testament before the Church. Divinely-inspired members of the Church wrote the books of the New Testament, just as divinely-inspired writers had written the Old Testament, and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to guard and interpret the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

Such an official interpreter is absolutely necessary if we are to understand the Bible properly.

The magisterium is infallible when it teaches officially because Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles and their successors "into all truth" (John 16:12–13).

 

[Dragons87]

All good - but you have assumed that the present structural, institutional Roman Catholic Church to be the one true catholic (i.e. one church) church, which I do not fully agree with. Protestanism didn't break away from something that was truly clean and good. It broke away from something that was somewhat quirkly.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

AND yet I already showed that Peter always spoke firs and even among the Apostles he was the one who stood up...and all listened.
Also, he was always mentioned first.
Coincidence?

So?

My sister is the most talkative one in my family, should I therefore concluded that she's infallible, that obedience to her is required for salvation? I'm really not seeing the connection, not at all.

Choosen by the Father Himself.
"For no man told him, but the Father in Heaven...that Jesus was the Messiah."
It is NOT one verse, but all of the NT prooves his authority...and he was the ONE who Jesus said 'Feed my sheep."
IT was a specific conversation, in which all the Apostles understood Peter's leadership role.

I just don't follow all these amazingly huge leaps...

I think Jesus chose him to be one of the Apostles, but let's not get into the whole Trinity thing...

No, there's no verse that says that Peter was the first Pope or that it absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Yes, he was one of the Twelve. Yes, Bible students sometimes call Peter, James and John as the "inner three" since they seem to be front and center a lot in the recorded accounts (no idea if that was often the case or just in the examples recorded). Peter, James and Paul play central roles in the book of Acts. Yeah. How all this proves that Peter was a Pope or that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff is simply beyond me.

From the top...and once again, Tradition does NOT go against scxripture, and scripture doesnt go against Tradition. They are tied together, and the truth of Tradition is in fact in scripture.......but not ALL of it is in scripture.

Two things to keep in mind:

1. Given the epistemological system of norming used by the Roman Catholic Denomination, it is functionally IMPOSSIBLE for the self-same's chosen Tradition to be in conflict with the Bible. It is not possible, albeit only to Catholics. Since the RCC has placed it's own Tradition, teachings, interpretations and applications as EQUAL and INSEPARABLE to the Bible, and the norma normans for itself, then there is no other possibility but that they will agree. Others, however, who do not proclaim that the teachings of the RCC are the Norm for the teachings of the RCC don't always accept the same conclusion.


2. Any teacher, congregation or denomination can make exactly the same self-claim, and as close as their own Tradition is used to Norm it, they too will always be correct and never in conflict with the Bible. Consider the LDS. They make essentially the same self-claims as the RCC and uses the same norming system to support it, so they conclude that nothing they teach is in conflict with the Bible but in perfect harmony with it and perfectly interprets it - and if you accept their Tradition as True (as the RCC does their chosen Traditon) and view the Bible in view of it, then that's true.

Therefore...scripture does back up Tradition.
IT matters most...IF YOU KNOW HOW TO UNDERSTAND SCRIPTURE.
Note; I did NOT say 'interpret'...but understand.

And, of course, obviously, ANY individual, congregation or denomination can claim whatever they want, say or teach whatever they want, if they reject any and all accountability beyond themselves, if they insist that their OWN interpretations and teachings are the Norm for the evaluation of their OWN interpretations and teachings, then there's no other possible function but that their OWN interpretations and teachings will be found true - there is no other possiblity given the norming process that is used and the rejection of any accountability.



Now, sometimes you say that there's nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Tradition that the RCC has adopted - and I personally wouldn't argue that point. But here you say that Scripture backs up Tradition. I respectually disagree. Not always, especially in the areas that are controversial.

For example, there is NO BIBLICAL support whatsoever for the following:
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (DOGMA)
The Immaculate Conception of Mary (DOGMA)
The Assumption of Mary (DOGMA)
The Mediatrix of all Graces (Doctrine, I believe)
The Infalliblity of the Papacy
Unam Sanctum
And I could list more...
Now I did NOT say that these teachings contradict the Bible (that's not what we are discussing here), I'm respectfully disagreeing that they are specifically supported by the Bible.

The Church has stood thus far...without changes.
The Eucharist is the same, the confessions are still the same, in fact all the sacraments are the same...
ALL of which has not been changed, thus she has stood the test of time...and the gates have not prevailed.

I think that's not so...

The RC Denomination didn't always teach the accident concept that is central to Transubstantiation, it did not always teach that there are 7 Sacraments, it did not always teach that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff or the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary as Dogma, shall I go on?

2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

Yup, and nothing there that says, "This tradition of which I speak will not be recorded in the Bible but will be kept a huge secret and given to the Roman Catholic Denomination and they may eventually tell you all the DOGMAS which you MUST believe - although it may take them well over 1,000 years before they tell you that." I just don't see that in those verses. Nothing about any denomination. Nothing about any secrets kept out of the Bible. No mention at all of the Pope or the Roman Catholic Denomination. You can choose to believe that, if you desire, and I have no more problem than I do with Mormons who believe the same thing only that it's been given to them. I can't prove either of you wrong. But I see nothing that supports the self-claims, either. So, it will need to be something we agree to disagree on. But, then, I'm not saying the Christians who participate in congregations associated with the Roman Catholic Denomination aren't saved. I have no equal of the RCC's Unam Sanctum.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18) but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26). He gave the sacraments to heal, feed, and strengthen us. The seven sacraments; baptism, the Eucharist, penance (also called reconciliation or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick are not just symbols. They are signs that actually convey God’s grace and love.

The sacraments were foreshadowed in the Old Testament by things that did not actually convey grace but merely symbolized it (circumcision, for example, prefigured baptism, and the Passover meal prefigured the Eucharist. When Christ came, he did not do away with symbols of God’s grace. He supernaturalized them, energizing them with grace.

God constantly uses material things to show his love and power. After all, matter is not evil. When he created the physical universe, everything God created was "very good" (Gen. 1:31). He takes such delight in matter that He even dignified it through his own Incarnation (John 1:14).

During his earthly ministry Jesus healed, fed, and strengthened people through humble elements such as mud, water, bread, oil, and wine. He could have performed his miracles directly, but he preferred to use material things to bestow his grace.

In his first public miracle Jesus turned water into wine, at the request of his mother, Mary (John 2:1–11). He healed a blind man by rubbing mud on his eyes (John 9:1–7). He multiplied a few loaves and fish into a meal for thousands (John 6:5–13). He changed bread and wine into his own body and blood (Matt. 26:26– 28). Through the sacraments he continues to heal, feed, and strengthen us.

Baptism
Because of original sin, we are born without grace in our souls, so there is no way for us to have fellowship with God. Jesus became man to bring us into union with his Father. He said no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is first born of "water and the Spirit" (John 3:5)

Through baptism we are born again, but this time on a spiritual level instead of a physical level. We are washed in the bath of rebirth (Titus 3:5). We are baptized into Christ’s death and therefore share in his Resurrection (Rom. 6:3–7).

Baptism cleanses us of sins and brings the Holy Spirit and his grace into our souls (Acts 2:38, 22:16). And the apostle Peter is perhaps the most blunt of all: "Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism is the gateway into the Church.

Penance
Sometimes on our journey toward the heavenly promised land we stumble and fall into sin. God is always ready to lift us up and to restore us to grace-filled fellowship with him. He does this through the sacrament of penance (which is also known as confession or reconciliation).

Jesus gave his apostles power and authority to reconcile us to the Father. They received Jesus’ own power to forgive sins when he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained" (John 20:22–23).

Paul notes that "all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation. . . . So, we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us" (2 Cor. 5:18–20). Through confession to a priest, God’s minister, we have our sins forgiven, and we receive grace to help us resist future temptations.

The Eucharist
Once we become members of Christ’s family, he does not let us go hungry, but feeds us with his own body and blood through the Eucharist. In the Old Testament, as they prepared for their journey in the wilderness, God commanded his people to sacrifice a lamb and sprinkle its blood on their doorposts, so the Angel of Death would pass by their homes. Then they ate the lamb to seal their covenant with God.

This lamb prefigured Jesus. He is the real "Lamb of God," who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Through Jesus we enter into a New Covenant with God (Luke 22:20), who protects us from eternal death. God’s Old Testament people ate the Passover lamb. Now we must eat the Lamb that is the Eucharist. Jesus said, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" (John 6:53).

At the Last Supper he took bread and wine and said, "Take and eat. This is my body . . . This is my blood which will be shed for you" (Mark 14:22–24). In this way Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, the sacrificial meal Catholics consume at each Mass.

The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross occurred "once for all"; it cannot be repeated (Heb. 9:28). Christ does not "die again" during Mass, but the very same sacrifice that occurred on Calvary is made present on the altar. That’s why the Mass is not "another" sacrifice, but a participation in the same, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Paul reminds us that the bread and the wine really become, by a miracle of God’s grace, the actual body and blood of Jesus: "Anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27–29).

After the consecration of the bread and wine, no bread or wine remains on the altar. Only Jesus himself, under the appearance of bread and wine, remains.

Confirmation
God strengthens our souls in another way, through the sacrament of confirmation. Even though Jesus’ disciples received grace before his Resurrection, on Pentecost the Holy Spirit came to strengthen them with new graces for the difficult work ahead.

They went out and preached the gospel fearlessly and carried out the mission Christ had given them. Later, they laid hands on others to strengthen them as well (Acts 8:14–17). Through confirmation you too are strengthened to meet the spiritual challenges in your life.

Matrimony
Marriage involves three parties: the bride, the groom, and God. When two Christians receive the sacrament of matrimony, God is with them, witnessing and blessing their marriage covenant. A sacramental marriage is permanent; only death can break it (Mark 10:1–12, Rom. 7:2–3, 1 Cor. 7:10–11). This holy union is a living symbol of the unbreakable relationship between Christ and his Church (Eph. 5:21–33).

Holy Orders
Others are called to share specially in Christ’s priesthood. In the Old Covenant, even though Israel was a kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6), the Lord called certain men to a special priestly ministry (Exod. 19: 22). In the New Covenant, even though Christians are a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:9), Jesus calls certain men to a special priestly ministry (Rom. 15:15–16).

This sacrament is called holy orders. Through it priests are ordained and thus empowered to serve the Church (2 Tim. 1:6–7) as pastors, teachers, and spiritual fathers who heal, feed, and strengthen God’s people—most importantly through preaching and the administration of the sacraments.

Anointing of the Sick
Priests care for us when we are physically ill. They do this through the sacrament known as the anointing of the sick. The Bible instructs us, "Is anyone among you suffering? He should pray. . . . Is any one among you sick? He should summon the presbyters [priests] of the Church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven" (Jas. 5:14–15). Anointing of the sick not only helps us endure illness, but it cleanses our souls and helps us prepare to meet God.


TALKING WITH GOD AND HIS SAINTS

One of the most important activities for a Catholic is prayer. Without it there can be no true spiritual life. Through personal prayer and the communal prayer of the Church, especially the Mass, we worship and praise God, we express sorrow for our sins, and we intercede on behalf of others (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Through prayer we grow in our relationship with Christ and with members of God’s family.

This family includes all members of the Church, whether on earth, in heaven, or in purgatory. Since Jesus has only one body, and since death has no power to separate us from Christ (Rom. 8:3–8), Christians who are in heaven or who, before entering heaven, are being purified in purgatory by God’s love (1 Cor. 3:12–15) are still part of the Body of Christ.

Jesus said the second greatest commandment is to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:39). Those in heaven love us more intensely than they ever could have loved us while on earth. They pray for us constantly (Rev. 5:8), and their prayers are powerful (Jas. 5:16).

Our prayers to the saints in heaven, asking for their prayers for us, and their intercession with the Father do not undermine Christ’s role as sole Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). In asking saints in heaven to pray for us we follow Paul’s instructions: "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone," for "this is good and pleasing to God our Savior" (1 Tim. 2:1–4).

All members of the Body of Christ are called to help one another through prayer. Mary’s prayers are especially effective on our behalf because of her relationship with her Son (John 2:1–11).

God gave Mary a special role. He saved her from all sin (Luke 1:28, 47), made her uniquely blessed among all women (Luke 1:42), and made her a model for all Christians (Luke 1:48). At the end of her life he took her, body and soul, into heaven—an image of our own resurrection at the end of the world (Rev. 12:1–2).


What You Must Do to Be Saved
Best of all, the promise of eternal life is a gift, freely offered to us by God. Our initial forgiveness and justification are not things we "earn" . Jesus is the mediator who bridged the gap of sin that separates us from God (1 Tim. 2:5); he bridged it by dying for us. He has chosen to make us partners in the plan of salvation (1 Cor. 3:9).

The Catholic Church teaches what the apostles taught and what the Bible teaches: We are saved by grace alone, but not by faith alone (which is what "Bible Christians" teach; see Jas. 2:24).

When we come to God and are justified (that is, enter a right relationship with God), nothing preceding justification, whether faith or good works, earns grace. But then God plants his love in our hearts, and we should live out our faith by doing acts of love (Gal. 6:2).

Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life (Rom. 2:6–7, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10, Matt. 25:34–40).

Jesus said it is not enough to have faith in him; we also must obey his commandments. "Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do the things I command?" (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21–23, 19:16–21).

We do not "earn" our salvation through good works (Eph. 2:8–9, Rom. 9:16), but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life (Rom. 2:7, Gal. 6:8–9).

Paul said, "God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work" (Phil. 2:13). John explained that "the way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:3–4, 3:19–24, 5:3–4).

Since no gift can be forced on the recipient—gifts always can be rejected—even after we become justified, we can throw away the gift of salvation. We throw it away through grave (mortal) sin (John 15:5–6, Rom. 11:22–23, 1 Cor. 15:1–2). Paul tells us, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23).

Read his letters and see how often Paul warned Christians against sin! He would not have felt compelled to do so if their sins could not exclude them from heaven (1 Cor. 6:9–10, Gal. 5:19–21).

Paul reminded the Christians in Rome that God "will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life for those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness" (Rom. 2:6–8).


Are You Guaranteed Heaven?
Some people promote an especially attractive idea: All true Christians, regardless of how they live, have an absolute assurance of salvation, once they accept Jesus into their hearts as "their personal Lord and Savior." The problem is that this belief is contrary to the Bible and constant Christian teaching.

Keep in mind what Paul told the Christians of his day: "If we have died with him [in baptism; see Rom. 6:3–4] we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:11–12).
If we do not persevere, we shall not reign with him.

The Bible makes it clear that Christians have a moral assurance of salvation (God will be true to his word and will grant salvation to those who have faith in Christ and are obedient to him [1 John 3:19–24]), but the Bible does not teach that Christians have a guarantee of heaven. There can be no absolute assurance of salvation. Writing to Christians, Paul said, "See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness, otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22–23; Matt. 18:21–35, 1 Cor. 15:1–2, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).

Note that Paul includes an important condition: "provided you remain in his kindness." He is saying that Christians can lose their salvation by throwing it away. He warns, "Whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall" (1 Cor. 10:11–12).

I am ‘working out my salvation in fear and trembling’ (Phil. 2:12), knowing that it is God’s gift of grace that is working in me."

 

[jckstraw72]

Is Christianity the one true religion or not? I see 30,000 variances, not ONE TRUE religion if we take a look at all of Christendom.

Its ridiculous how relativism and pluralism are denied on a religious scale (Christianity is the one true religion), but its encouraged on a denominational scale (you can interpret scripture however you want). That makes no sense. Christ taught what scripture truly means, He never left it up to people to make up new meanings, thus there is one, fully true meaning of scripture out there, and Christ promised thered always be the Church He founded......logic tells us the one, true meaning of scripture is fully knowable.

 

[Everlastinglife]

Christ sent the Holy Spirit to be His Vicar on earth. ​

The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth.​

Christ taught that he alone is the Saviour.​

The Pope teaches that the Church is the Saviour.​

John 14:6, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"









Luke 9:23, "Then He said to them all: 'If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me."

 

[WarriorAngel]

So?

My sister is the most talkative one in my family, should I therefore concluded that she's infallible, that obedience to her is required for salvation? I'm really not seeing the connection, not at all.

Did Jesus tell her she was the one with the keys..or did I miss that?? Did he say what she bound on earth was bound in heaven?...
That would be the difference...ya know?





I just don't follow all these amazingly huge leaps...

I think Jesus chose him to be one of the Apostles, but let's not get into the whole Trinity thing...

WHY not?

No, there's no verse that says that Peter was the first Pope or that it absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Actually it does. WHO did Jesus tell to feed His sheep?
Who did Jesus hand the keys to...?
WHO did Jesus tell would instruct the ppl and it would be bound in Heaven.
THAT is an awesome undertaking...and it was Peter's assigned authority.
WHY does this not soak in?

Yes, he was one of the Twelve. Yes, Bible students sometimes call Peter, James and John as the "inner three" since they seem to be front and center a lot in the recorded accounts (no idea if that was often the case or just in the examples recorded). Peter, James and Paul play central roles in the book of Acts. Yeah. How all this proves that Peter was a Pope or that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff is simply beyond me.







Two things to keep in mind:

1. Given the epistemological system of norming used by the Roman Catholic Denomination, it is functionally IMPOSSIBLE for the self-same's chosen Tradition to be in conflict with the Bible. It is not possible, albeit only to Catholics. Since the RCC has placed it's own Tradition, teachings, interpretations and applications as EQUAL and INSEPARABLE to the Bible, and the norma normans for itself, then there is no other possibility but that they will agree. Others, however, who do not proclaim that the teachings of the RCC are the Norm for the teachings of the RCC don't always accept the same conclusion.


2. Any teacher, congregation or denomination can make exactly the same self-claim, and as close as their own Tradition is used to Norm it, they too will always be correct and never in conflict with the Bible. Consider the LDS. They make essentially the same self-claims as the RCC and uses the same norming system to support it, so they conclude that nothing they teach is in conflict with the Bible but in perfect harmony with it and perfectly interprets it - and if you accept their Tradition as True (as the RCC does their chosen Traditon) and view the Bible in view of it, then that's true.




And, of course, obviously, ANY individual, congregation or denomination can claim whatever they want, say or teach whatever they want, if they reject any and all accountability beyond themselves, if they insist that their OWN interpretations and teachings are the Norm for the evaluation of their OWN interpretations and teachings, then there's no other possible function but that their OWN interpretations and teachings will be found true - there is no other possiblity given the norming process that is used and the rejection of any accountability.



Now, sometimes you say that there's nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Tradition that the RCC has adopted - and I personally wouldn't argue that point. But here you say that Scripture backs up Tradition. I respectually disagree. Not always, especially in the areas that are controversial.

For example, there is NO BIBLICAL support whatsoever for the following:
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (DOGMA)
The Immaculate Conception of Mary (DOGMA)
The Assumption of Mary (DOGMA)
The Mediatrix of all Graces (Doctrine, I believe)
The Infalliblity of the Papacy
Unam Sanctum
And I could list more...

AND I could list the scripture, but you wouldnt get it, because Lord knows as my witness, that I have tried showing you infallibility, but for whatever reason, you dont get it.

Now I did NOT say that these teachings contradict the Bible (that's not what we are discussing here), I'm respectfully disagreeing that they are specifically supported by the Bible.


They are supported....
They are supported....
AS I said above, if you dont get the infallibility, then you just won't 'see' the scripture I show you.




I think that's not so...

The RC Denomination didn't always teach the accident concept that is central to Transubstantiation, it did not always teach that there are 7 Sacraments, it did not always teach that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff or the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of Mary as Dogma, shall I go on?

Indeed, it did not have the Pope speak ex cathedra concerning the issue...{When the Spirit inspires dogma} but it was never once an issue, until they decided to set it to dogma.
BUT it was not made up...but Spirit led to understand the Transubstantiation.
Yes I know.





Yup, and nothing there that says, "This tradition of which I speak will not be recorded in the Bible but will be kept a huge secret and given to the Roman Catholic Denomination and they may eventually tell you all the DOGMAS which you MUST believe - although it may take them well over 1,000 years before they tell you that." I just don't see that in those verses. Nothing about any denomination. Nothing about any secrets kept out of the Bible. No mention at all of the Pope or the Roman Catholic Denomination. You can choose to believe that, if you desire, and I have no more problem than I do with Mormons who believe the same thing only that it's been given to them. I can't prove either of you wrong. But I see nothing that supports the self-claims, either. So, it will need to be something we agree to disagree on. But, then, I'm not saying the Christians who participate in congregations associated with the Roman Catholic Denomination aren't saved. I have no equal of the RCC's Unam Sanctum.

Nother there says it wouldnt either.
In fact, since Christ did NOT ordain all the new found churches...here is the clincher buddy, since man, not the Lord was responsible for the divided churches, there is no way they would keep the truth.
IF all had broke off God's Church keeping the Truth intact, then they would number one, not have broken off, number two, would have the same authority, which they do not.

IE...if Christ so ordained other churches, they would have the Oral teachings...but they do not. And they fight against it...which is IN scripture to keep it. Tradition is the Oral teachings, and the SPIRIT comes with the oral teachings, it is a package deal.
IF you dont have the oral, you dont have ALL the truth.



Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

Peace to you too.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Christ sent the Holy Spirit to be His Vicar on earth. ​

The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ on earth.​

Christ taught that he alone is the Saviour.​

The Pope teaches that the Church is the Saviour.​

John 14:6, "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"









Luke 9:23, "Then He said to them all: 'If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me."

I realise ppl do not like to read, as is the problem in a NY minute world...but this was already addressed.
So do not come in and speculate on something you are misunderstanding about Catholicism.

Welcome anyway...and here is what the Church is...AGAIN.

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

His Church is His institution.
Institututed for the mercy of His People.

HIS visible organization on earth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

IF we assume that Jesus founded an institutional denomination

Not an assumptiom.

It certainly is.
There's nothing that says the one holy catholic church is a congregation, much less a group of them.

The church is PEOPLE. Only people can believe, trust, act, minister, care, Baptize, preach, make disciples. Legal entities can't do these things. I find the assumption unreasonable, but I don't denounce it. I just don't accept it.
I believe in one, holy catholic church.

You can assume and believe as you please.

and IF we assume that the one holy catholic church is an institutional denomination. And IF we assume that ministry is entrusted to an institution rather than to people. And IF we assume it's institutions that love, forgive, care, share, etc

It's not only the Church militant it is also the Mystical Church of all christians.

So you assume.
IF...

and IF we assume that that institutional denomination is the Roman Catholic Denomination

non-sequitor founded on straw.

Actually, it's a pretty big assumption.
A really big IF...

Of course, the LDS claims the same thing and uses exactly the same process to support it. People who believe the church of Christ is a denomination always think it happens to be theirs...

and IF we assume that Jesus gave the Apostles a corpus of DOGMAS (things which MUST be believed), and IF we assume they chose to not include these DOGMAS in their biblical writings. And IF we assume they instead entrusted this corpus of DOGMAS to the Roman Catholic Denomination, and IF we assume that this denomination has been an infallible steward of this corpus, and IF we assume that the Roman Catholic perfectly and fully knows this corpus of DOGMAS (always has) but other denominations that so claim don't, THEN I think you have a point.

This just shows poor understanding of Apostolic Tradition and development of doctrine.

Just noting the assumptions
The chain of "IF's"...

Yup, the RCC has a LOT of assumptions about that "Tradition" they have chosen to embrace, declared as true and then use as the norm for whether it's true. It's okay. Assumptions aren't always a bad thing, but it's good to realize them.

Not only with the Scriptures (often ignoring much and connecting dots in AMAZING ways), but also Tradition. They CLAIM they are based on history - but it's the history according to themselves ("the victor writes the history" as the old proverb says).

This is such a silly argument!!!! Perhaps it would be more to the liking of some if early christians had been arians, or one of the ancient heresies.

You missed the point.

What I was saying is that the RCC "cherry picks" with the best of them - and not ONLY the Bible but also the other part of it's norma normans - the Tradition which it has chosen and declared True. It "cherry picked" that. Because there are equally historic authors, documents, etc. that didn't agree with their teachings and so they don't accept. My point was that the RCC "cherry picks" too.


You are probably aware that the LDS also quotes from the ECF a lot - to support their unique (and very uncatholic) doctrines. Cherry picking is a common thing.

And, of course, Protestants do too. Here are just a tiny few they'd quote re to that key, central self-claim.


St. Augustine

In his interpretation of Matthew 16:18, St. Augustine wrote,

"Because thou hast said unto me, 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock' which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' will I build my Church' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee . . . For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said,'But I am of Christ.' And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ.; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)


St. John Chrysostom


"'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;' that is, on the faith of his confession." (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford: Parker, 1844; Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 54.3)




Cyril of Alexandria

"Now by the word 'rock,' Jesus indicated the immovable faith of the disciple." (Commentary on Isaiah 4.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col 940.)




Roman Catholic historian, Johan Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, who taught Church history for 47 years says about the Roman Catholic Denomination's interpretation of Matthew 16:18. "Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess - Origin, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas - has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!" (The Pope and the Council, Boston: Roberts, 1869, P. 74)

Everyone does this, to some degree. Here's the difference. Catholics make their "cherry picking" hermaneutics and history the 'norma normans' (the Norm, the Rule, the Plumbline, the Canon) for their very own teachings. The teachings of the RCC are correct because the RCC says so. Protestants, on the other hand, embrace a norma normans ABOVE and OUTSIDE of them - the Bible. Their hermaneutics, their teachings, their "cherry picking" is ACCOUNTABLE to the Bible. For Catholics, the Bible is accountable to them

When the CC is accountable it's not just the hiarchy but also to the whole body of belivers. The Church militant. Also the Church is direclty connected to God through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not through the "individual infallable interpretation of the Bible". This is not a direct connectoin with God but rather using the Bible as a mediator.

Let me guess... You don't consider any of that to be assumptions, a denomination self-claiming MUCH and then declaring that it's accountable only to itself (and nothing else) so that it's own teachings and self-claims are the Norm for it's own teachings and self-claims. And I don't think you ever got past #1 - that your particular denomination just happens to be the Church.


Again, you can accept whatever chain of assumptions you want.
It's okay with me. I was just pointing out the long list of if's in the RCC's chain of assumptions.


Peace be with you...


- Josiah


.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Seriously California...the Church is not the people.

CHURCH is the replacement of the Temple, the house of God.

Hebrews 13;
7 Remember your prelates who have "spoken" {Oral teaching BTW} the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. 9 Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which have not profited those that walk in them. 10 We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.

17 Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

prel·ate Pronunciation Key (pr

l

t)
n.
A high-ranking member of the clergy, especially a bishop.

The doctrine of the Church as set forth by the Apostles after the Ascension is in all respects identical with the teaching of Christ just described. St. Peter, in his first sermon, delivered on the day of Pentecost, declares that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messianic king (Acts 2:36). The means of salvation which he indicates is baptism; and by baptism his converts are aggregated to the society of disciples (ii, 41). Though in these days the Christians still availed themselves of the Temple services, yet from the first the brotherhood of Christ formed a society essentially distinct from the synagogue. The reason why St. Peter bids his hearers accept baptism is none other than that they may "save themselves from this unbelieving generation". Within the society of believers not only were the members united by common rites, but the tie of unity was so close as to bring about in the Church of Jerusalem that condition of things in which the disciples had all things common (ii, 44). Christ had declared that His kingdom should be spread among all nations, and had committed the execution of the work to the twelve (Matthew 28:19). Yet the universal mission of the Church revealed itself but gradually. St. Peter indeed makes mention of it from the first (Acts 2:39). But in the earliest years the Apostolic activity is confined to Jerusalem alone. Indeed an old tradition (Apollonius, cited by Eusebius "Hist. Eccl.", V, xvii, and Clem. Alex., "Strom.", VI, v, in P. G. IX, 264) asserts that Christ had bidden the Apostles wait twelve years in Jerusalem before dispersing to carry their message elsewhere. The first notable advance occurs consequent on the persecution which arose after the death of Stephen, A. D. 37. This was the occasion of the preaching of the Gospel to the Samaritans, a people excluded from the privileges of Israel, though acknowledging the Mosaic Law (Acts 8:5). A still further expansion resulted from the revelation directing St. Peter to admit to baptism Cornelius, a devout Gentile, i. e. one associated to the Jewish religion but not circumcised. From this tune forward circumcision and the observance of the Law were not a condition requisite for incorporation into the Church. But the final step of admitting those Gentiles who had known no previous connection with the religion of Israel, and whose life had been spent in paganism, was not taken till more than fifteen years after Christ's Ascension; it did not occur, it would seem, before the day described in Acts xiii, 46, when, at Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas announced that since the Jews accounted themselves unworthy of eternal life they would "turn to the Gentiles".



In the Apostolic teaching the term Church, from the very first, takes the place of the expression Kingdom of God (Acts 5:11). Where others than the Jews were concerned, the greater suitability of the former name is evident; for Kingdom of God had special reference to Jewish beliefs. But the change of title only emphasizes the social unity of the members. They are the new congregation of Israel -- the theocratic polity: they are the people (laos) of God (Acts 15:14; Romans 9:25; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9 sq.; Hebrews 8:10; Revelation 18:4; 21:3). By their admission to the Church, the Gentiles have been grafted in and form part of God's fruitful olive-tree, while apostate Israel has been broken off (Romans 11:24). St. Paul, writing to his Gentile converts at Corinth, terms the ancient Hebrew Church "our fathers" (1 Corinthians 10:1). Indeed from time to time the previous phraseology is employed, and the Gospel message is termed the preaching of the Kingdom of God (Acts 20:25; 28:31). Within the Church the Apostles exercised that regulative power with which Christ had endowed them. It was no chaotic mob, but a true society possessed of a corporate life, and organized in various orders. The evidence shows the twelve to have possessed (a) a power of jurisdiction, in virtue of which they wielded a legislative and judicial authority, and (b) a magisterial office to teach the Divine revelation entrusted to them. Thus (a) we find St. Paul authoritatively prescribing for the order and discipline of the churches. He does not advise; he directs (1 Corinthians 11:34; 26:1; Titus 1:5). He pronounces judicial sentence (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 2:10), and his sentences, like those of other Apostles, receive at times the solemn sanction of miraculous punishment (1 Timothy 1:20; Acts 5:1-10). In like manner he bids his delegate Timothy hear the causes even of priests, and rebuke, in the sight of all, those who sin (1 Timothy 5:19 sq.). (b) With no less definiteness does he assert that the Apostolate carries with it a doctrinal authority, which all are bound to recognize. God has sent them, he affirms, to claim "the obedience of faith" (Romans 1:5; 15:18). Further, his solemnly expressed desire, that even if an angel from heaven were to preach another doctrine to the Galatians than that which he had delivered to them, he should be anathema (Galatians 1:8), involves a claim to infallibility in the teaching of revealed truth.

While the whole Apostolic College enjoyed this power in the Church, St. Peter always appears in that position of primacy which Christ assigned to him. It is Peter who receives into the Church the first converts, alike from Judaism and from heathenism (Acts 2:41; 10:5 sq.), who works the first miracle (Acts 3:1 sqq.), who inflicts the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts 5:1 sqq.). It is Peter who casts out of the Church the first heretic, Simon Magus (Acts 8:21), who makes the first Apostolic visitation of the churches (Acts 9:32), and who pronounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7). (See Schanz, III, p. 460.) So indisputable was his position that when St. Paul was about to undertake the work of preaching to the heathen the Gospel which Christ had revealed to him, he regarded it as necessary to obtain recognition from Peter (Galatians 1:18). More than this was not needful: for the approbation of Peter was definitive.

 

[djns9437]

How do we know that the Church was not meant to continue to be the ONLY Church? And that He did not ordain Luther.
1 Timothy 5; 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, 5 Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.


How do we know the Lord did not want a 'new' doctrine? a NEW church?

2 Timothy 2; 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us. 13 If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he can not deny himself.

How do we know the Church is without error?

14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. 15 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.

2 Timothy 1; 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.

How can we test if the reformation was good?

2 Timothy 2; 18 Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some. 19 But the sure foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal: the Lord knoweth who are his; and let every one depart from iniquity who nameth the name of the Lord.


Are Catholics arrogant? Or are they correct?

2 Timothy 2; 25 With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth,
26 And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.


Something to think about the next time anyone decides to persecute, attack, profane the Church, or just protest against Her...

2 Timothy 3;


1 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. 6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, patience,




11 Persecutions, afflictions: such as came upon me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra: what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error. 14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.


The next time anyone feels compelled, without knowing the Tradition of the Church, to give their utmost disdain on her...remember this...there was ONLY One Church, Only One doctrine, and Only One scripture for the ONE Church.

They {Apostles and first Church fathers..aka Timothy} are ONLY referring to the ONE Church.
NONE other existed.

AND if anyone at any time can point out scripture to me that shows me that without question....Luther and other christian churches were meant to exist...then please do so.

Because scripture is for all time...and was written ABOUT the ONE Church and foundation Jesus started.

Until I see emphatic and undeniable scripture of this Very Church needing to be broken apart...then please do not hesitate to share this prophecy.

IF you ask if God ordained the splitting of His Church, I have given sufficient information to show you in scripure, that it was never prophecied NOR would ever be fore ordained. In fact, it was spoken against...time and time again in the very scripture itself that we all hold so dear.

When I admonish others who are compelled to speak out against the Church, I do so at the behest of scripture.


BUT so all know..........and from my heart....I love all my estranged breathren...if I did not, I would NOT share this with you.



One other sidenote; The dark history of the Church is a matter of interpretation as is the protest and reformation; done according to who is 'reporting' the event.
SO we cannot trust nor positively adhere to Luther being righteous. In fact, since the folks who wrote about the reformation have two different 'views' we can only get past the split, and again look at the very original Church.

Isn't it time we reunite and forget the opinions of the past?

Isnt it time to have One Eucharist for all, for all eternity?

I love you.

Your my Hero.God Bless you!!!

 

[djns9437]

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

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Amen!!!

 

[yebastick]

When christians talks about which "Church" holds the truth or is true, I am always compelled to point them to read the Seven Churches of Revelation (Rev chapter 2 and 3).

Then I ask, are these churches part of the "Body of Christ"?

In fact, when I read that only 2 (Smyrna and Philadelphia) of 7 who gets the "good" stamp, it gets discouraging. You might even question the Bad Five as being called the "church".

My take.



-----------

"that I may know Him ..." Philippians 3:10

 

[WarriorAngel]

When christians talks about which "Church" holds the truth or is true, I am always compelled to point them to read the Seven Churches of Revelation (Rev chapter 2 and 3).

Then I ask, are these churches part of the "Body of Christ"?

In fact, when I read that only 2 (Smyrna and Philadelphia) of 7 who gets the "good" stamp, it gets discouraging. You might even question the Bad Five as being called the "church".

My take.



-----------

"that I may know Him ..." Philippians 3:10

Thanks for your input.

St. John is ordered to write to the seven churches in Asia. The manner of Christ's appearing to him.

1 "Things which must shortly come to pass"... and again it is said, ver. 3, The time is at hand-- This cannot be meant of all the things prophesied in the Apocalypse, where mention is made also of the day of judgment, and of the glory of heaven at the end of the world. That some things were to come to pass shortly, is evident, by what is said to the Seven Churches, chap. 2 and 3, Or that the persecutions foretold should begin shortly. Or that these words signified, that all time is short, and that from the coming of Christ, we are now in the last age or last hour. See 1 John 2. 18.


Apocalypse 1; 11 Saying: What thou seest, write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.

St John is instructed to write these revelations he had down...
and send to the churches...which were of course in the first century, and since he wrote this book sometime before he died an old man, and John was not accepting of any doctrine but the Apostolic teachings, and he spoke against heresies against the Church...then it is conclusive that St John was not rendering that 7 new churches should appear and be considered equal to the One which Christ built.

The 1st Revelation was for an immediate purpose, and was to be sent to the immediate {Existing} churches.
Several Catholic Churches, Under One Catholic faith.
IE..... 7 Churches were being administered to by the Apostles but all were the same faith.

Hope this helps you.

 

[jckstraw72]

How can Christians tout Christianity as the one, true faith if they openly admit they dont know the complete truth of the faith, and cant even agree? Where is the truth in the 37000 different versions of it floating around out there?

 

[GraceInHim]

How can Christians tout Christianity as the one, true faith if they openly admit they dont know the complete truth of the faith, and cant even agree? Where is the truth in the 37000 different versions of it floating around out there?

are we to judge Christianity as a whole or nit pic? If we do not know and have studied a certain group within, how them can we judge any?... like the Calvin thread.. do not know about it, so never posted...

 

[jckstraw72]

If we judge Christianity as a whole we see much infighting and confusion as to the truth of the faith. I contend that there is not a single issue that all Christians agree on....right down to the divinity of Christ. Not a good testimony to the world--in fact it makes us look foolish-- we simply seem holier than thou since we claim truth but cant exactly pinpoint what that truth is.

 

[WarriorAngel]

If we judge Christianity as a whole we see much infighting and confusion as to the truth of the faith. I contend that there is not a single issue that all Christians agree on....right down to the divinity of Christ. Not a good testimony to the world--in fact it makes us look foolish-- we simply seem holier than thou since we claim truth but cant exactly pinpoint what that truth is.

Your analogy is correct, outside of the Church.
In the Catholic Church, if you disagree, you are not standing behind the doctrines, and are therefore not in communion with the Vatican.

That is imperative to follow and obey her doctrines and dogma's. And the Church still contends the same Truths. She is not looked about as foolish, but with marked disdain because so many varied interpretations abound, that people think they themselves can carry the truth.

Now as for the other sects since the reformation, you can believe and disagree with your church, and still be considered an member.
Why? Because no one knows exactly what scripture means, so the hypothesis is not only allowed, BUT in fact, this is why there are so many broken branches off of Lutheran.

No one can agree with what scripture means. {Except within Catholicism, unless we do not know what the Vatican has said}.

Inside the Church, we are told what the CHURCH stands behind. If any wish to dissent, then dont let the door hit ya on your way out.

The Church will not listen to the people, because the ppl are to be taught and led...not lead. The Church is not a democracy, nor does she listen to the best analogy of scripture. This is why we trust her, because she keeps the same Tradition precedented since the Apostles.
You do not see priests arguing amongst themselves on what scripture means. {Unless they follow heresies}
They all have the same Universal Truth.

Thanks for bringing up that point. It must be a difficult position in choosing which denomination has the best interpretation that protestants can agree with.