Catholic group defies church, ordains woman priest in NC

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
It is up to the commission and the Pope to decide if female deacons is possible.

No one said otherwise, but no one, not even the pope can authorize the ordination of women to Holy Orders. The office of Deaconess was not then and can never be the same as the ordination to Holy Orders of a Deacon.
 
Upvote 0

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Let me throw this in here as i recover from the flu (and before my headache comes back):

1. There was not separate sacerdotal class of believers in the NT church. All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

2. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit use the distinctive Greek word for what we refer to in English as "priests." For the words “hiereus” and “archiereus" ("priest" and "high priest" as in Heb. 4:15; 10:11) are the Greek words which the Holy Spirit distinctively uses for a separate sacerdotal (sacrificing) class in the New Testament (over 280 times total*, mainly as archiereus”) that of Old Testament "priests" (Hebrew ko^he^n) as well as those of pagans and the general priesthood of all NT believers. But which words He never uses for New Testament pastors ("poime¯n"), which are called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), which refers to those in one pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28.

The English word "priest" is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros, if with uncertainty, being referred to in Old English (around 700 to 1000 AD) as "preostas" or "preost," and finally resulting in the modern English "priest," which originally was used for presbuteros, but came to be used for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT “hiereus,” thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never using the distinctive term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers. Catholicism attempts to justify using the same distinctive word for both OT "ko^he^n" and NT presbuteros via an imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbuteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry.

3. There was no Mass in the NT church, that of a priests officiating over the Lord's supper, changing the elements in to the "real" body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine (which actually no longer exist, being replaced by the "Real Presence" of Christ, until the non-existent bread or wine begins to decay) and which is offered by the priest as a sacrifice for sin, and which he then dispenses to the people in order for them to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which ritual is the supreme central activity of the Catholic church and the primary active function of her pastors.

No NT pastor is even described officiating at the Lord's supper, or charged with doing so in the record of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings show us how the NT church understood the gospels), nor is the Lord's supper even manifestly described in Acts (simply refers to breaking of bread) or the rest of the NT onward, except in one epistle, which does not describe the distinctive Cath. Eucharist.

4. Instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function, and offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2)) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; ;Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7) In contrast, nowhere in the record of the NT church is the Lord's supper described as spiritual food, and the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself.

That said, the NT pastorate is clearly restricted to males, who is the head of the women, and which reflects the order within the Trinity.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

And which was the standard in Protestantism. More here by God's grace: ARE WOMEN PASTORS BIBLICAL?


You cannot be more wrong. Your account of the first century is revisionist history to suit Protestant bias. The Didache, by the way, has a description of a Mass that is remarkably similar to the Mass today. That one source refutes your assertions about the Mass. The First century also had Bishops, priests, and deacons. These were in Holy Orders. Any thought otherwise is revisionist bias.

Women and the Priesthood
The Sacrifice of the Mass
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
Peter and the Papacy (the reason I resigned as a Baptist clergy and joined the Catholic Church)
Real Meaning of "Catholic" According to Church Fathers
 
Upvote 0

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟811,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No one said otherwise, but no one, not even the pope can authorize the ordination of women to Holy Orders. The office of Deaconess was not then and can never be the same as the ordination to Holy Orders of a Deacon.
You can repeat that all you want but until the commission's findings come back as to what the actual duties of the deaconesses may have been we will not "know" the outcome. It is impossible to know what jewels of information may be found in those Vatican vaults.

God bless
 
Upvote 0

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others

Because Christ did not choose woman as priests, and the apostles did not choose women to be ordained deacons. Holy Orders are reserved to men only by virtue of the whole economy of God in such matters, and by the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
 
Upvote 0

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
You can repeat that all you want but until the commission's findings come back as to what the actual duties of the deaconesses may have been we will not "know" the outcome. It is impossible to know what jewels of information may be found in those Vatican vaults.

God bless

You can repeat all you want the implication that the commission may come back and suggest women in Holy Orders but the Commission has no legislative power at all. No commission can changed a single dotted "i" of Church teaching, and the Pope cannot change infallible teaching. Holy Orders is reserved to men. Period, according to the Church..

All the Commission can do is to describe what the deaconess did in the first century, which was not in Holy Orders. Anything else would be a lie and a re-writing of history. By the way, deaconesses exist today in the Orthodox Church, to which they are not ordained into Holy Orders.
 
Upvote 0

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Oh! I would like to see you unpack that statement.

There is nothing to "unpack". Infallible teaching by definition is unchangeable by anyone. It is the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The following document gives the levels of teaching, to which Levels 1 and 2 are infallible: Levels of Teaching within the Catholic Church

I presume you, too, hold to some of the same infallible teachings we do (e.g., divinity of Christ, Virgin Birth, the Trinity, Christ death on the cross to pay for our sins, and His Resurrection that defeated death, absence of error in the inspired sacred texts, etc.)? I also presume that you believe these things cannot be changed by any man?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't get why there's something against women priests. The only reason the Bible supposedly says that is because the Bible and the society at the time was formed by men, and women were seen as lesser and more property than people. We rightly see men and women as equal now.
Just what part of Hell did that rationalization from from? Just where you see culture, verssu creation being declared by the Holy spirit for the positional/functional distinctions btwn men and women, in the church and in the home?

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Spiritually there is neither male nor female, but in marriage and other arraignments in this world there are positional/functional distinctions, including btwn persons of the same gender according to their office, and each will be judged accordingly, and in accordance with light and grace given.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It is perfectly fine for a Cardinal to participate in an ecumenical service with a female protestant pastor with symbolic dropping of water in rememberance of baptism.
It maybe fine in the eyes of modern Rome, but I am sure the traditional "true" RCs would object, while a real believer should walk out of such. Most Methodists are lost liberals, which female pastors are part of, and Biblical baptism is by immersion, if possible.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Actually, history is in complete agreement with what I said. Revisionist history may differ. First Century Christianity was the Catholic Church. We even have extant manuscripts from Pope Clement I. The label of Catholic was applied in 107 AD by St Ignatius of Antioch.
Both history and Scripture proves the Catholic Church.
Wrong as instead, what history shows is the progressive deformation of the NT church via an accretion of traditions of men.

The church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 4:4; 19:4-5; 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation of the body “unto whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but who wrongly supposed lineage made them correct, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33) and thus the authenticity of Truth claims and oral preaching of the word must be subject to the only wholly God-inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)

In the light of which, what the NT church in Scripture (as seen in Acts onward, which shows how the NT church understood the gospels) did NOT profess/teach practice were such things as:

Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.

• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.

• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)

And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.

• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.

• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos are even called “hiereus," the distinctive word translated "priest," which conflation is the result of ecclesiastical evolution, and NT pastors are nowhere even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.

• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)

• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.

• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.

• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.

• Choosing more apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (in order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, thus no politics. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)

• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

More to see by God's grace.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You cannot be more wrong. Your account of the first century is revisionist history to suit Protestant bias. The Didache, by the way, has a description of a Mass that is remarkably similar to the Mass today. That one source refutes your assertions about the Mass.
It is YOU who are wrong, utterly ignoring that I said "NT church" not that which developed after the death of the apostles, and thus I challenge you to find the Catholic distinctives I listed as missing in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed and practiced, from Acts to Revelation.

It is no surprise that you appeal to the Didache, yet even this does not manifestly describes the distinctive Catholic Eucharist Mass. First, it "forgot" to mention Catholic priests as the persons that alone can conduct the Lord's supper and effect the purported metaphysical changes in the elements, being a separate class of sacerdotal clergy that are called by the distinctive name for such ("hiereus"), but which the Holy Spirit never used for NT clergy.

And which is their primary active function, but which is utterly absent in the life of the NT church. The Didache calls prophets "high priests" in type, and to "permit the Prophets to give thanks as much as [in what words] they wish.," in contrast to restrictions placed on others, but that such were typically traveling preachers, and a gathering may not have one present, and it is not taught that they must be the one's conducting the Lord's supper. .

In addition, besides the cup coming first in the Didache, it indicates that the Lord's supper was an actual meal (But after you are satisfied with food, thus give thanks), as in Scripture, not a mere piece of bread and sip of wine. ("Now after being filled, give thanks after this manner.."

Moreover, just where is the "Real Presence" (which apparently was originally an Anglican term) offered as a sacrifice in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead, as distinctive to other understandings of the Lord's supper as being spiritual food and drink? The Didache does not even repeat the "words of consecration" or mention "real flesh" as being consumed, but only refers to it as a holy sacrifice that is "spiritual food and drink," and not with such languages as "the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)

For the Didache says, " "Thou, O, Almighty Sovereign, didst make all things for Thy Name's sake; Thou gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant."

Dedicating the Lord's supper to remembering/showing the Lord's death is not the same thing as priests actually offering the elements as a sacrifice for sins. And as 1 Corinthians 10 teaches, pagans had fellowship with the object of their dedicatory=sacrificial feasts, but which was not by actually consuming the flesh and blood of the objects of their worship.

"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)

Thus for "a description of a Mass that is remarkably similar to the Mass today," there is hardly anything that is a distinct description of the Mass, but one that that could by used by Anglicans and Lutherans.

That said, the Didache is not qualified to be determinitive of doctrine and of what the NT church believed, since it is an uninspired composite work, dated from the late 1st to the late 2nd century, and contains strange teachings as well as adding to and contradicting Scripture nor being wholly consistent with Catholicism.

In chapter 1, it purports to quote Scripture but changes the Lord's positive statement, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31) into a negative, "and all things whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thee, neither do thou to another." Which form is what is typically seen in pagan literature. The positive is proactive, while the negative is prone to being understood as only avoiding doing things.

Next it again purports to quote Scripture, "and fast for those that persecute you," but which is not what the Lord's said, but "pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," (Matthew 5:44) and thus it misquotes the Lord.

It next seems to interprets "Abstain from fleshly and bodily [worldly] lusts. If any one give thee a blow on the right cheek turn to him the other also, and thou shalt be perfect," but which also was not what the Lord said, who exhorts believers to be/act perfect as their heavenly Father is (Matthew 5:48) by obedience to the beatitudes overall.

Next it invokes Luke 12:59 in teaching that that of one receives alms that "has not need shall give account, why he received and for what purpose, and coming into distress he shall be strictly examined concerning his deeds, and he shall not come out thence till he have paid the last farthing, But concerning this also it hath been said, "Let thine alms sweat (drop like sweat) into thy hands till thou know to whom thou shouldst give." However this latter quote is another one which is nowhere found in Scripture.

In Chapter 4, it teaches " If thou hast [anything], thou shalt give with thy hands a ransom for thy sins," but which is contrary to Christ being the only ransom for sins. While in one sense it can be said that "charity shall cover the multitude of sins," (1 Peter 4:8) and repentance/forgiveness can require restitution, the only ransom is the sinless shed blood of Christ, "For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

Moreover, despite its propensity (more to follow) to add to the word of God, it exhorts, "Thou shalt not forsake the commandments of the Lord, but thou shalt keep what thou hast received, neither adding [thereto] nor taking away [therefrom]." (4:13)

Next, in chapter 7 it teaches that It teaches "before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before.," which may be good advice but which is not what we see in Scripture, in which baptisms immediately followed the hearing and believing of the gospel, (Acts 2:38; 8:12,13,36,37; 10:43-47; 19:1-6) and only Paul is said to have fasted before being baptized. (Acts 9:9; 22:16)

In addition, it teaches that the mode of baptism is to be in in living (running) cold (preferably) water, or in the absence of such, "pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," while in Scripture baptism is by immersion, with nothing said about temperature or needing flowing water, nor of pouring water three times, though in the absence of water I suppose even spit might suffice as fulfilling the intent.

Next, in chapter 8 it teaches "Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but ye shall fast on the fourth day, and the preparation day (Friday).," which leads to ecclesiastical legalism. In Scripture there is no rule on how often to fast or when, but only "when," and that not being like the hypocrites is, "when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:16-18)

In chapter 8 it also teaches that "Pray thus thrice a day" the Lord's prayer, yet which is not taught in Scripture as a ritual prayer, but a model for prayer: "After this manner therefore pray ye" Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name... (Matthew 6:9) and "when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." (Matthew 6:7)

While Daniel prayed 3 times toward Jerusalem, nowhere is it taught that one prayer, including the Lord's prayer, is to be prayed 3 times a day, and which leads to ecclesiastical legalism. But thus does the Didache add to the word of God.

Next, in chapter 11 it states "Now with regard to the Apostles and Prophets, according to the decree (command) of the gospel, so do ye," yet it asserts,
"Let every Apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord But he shall not remain [longer than] one day; and, if need be, another [day] also; but if he remain three [days] he is a false prophet" which also is nowhere taught in Scripture, and which records that apostles "abode long time with the disciples." (Acts 14:28) "

Then also in chapter 11 we have another reference to Scripture, that while a prophet who asks for money or who otherwise does not manifest the behavior of the Lord is a false prophets, yet it warns, "And every prophet who speaks in the spirit ye shall not try or prove; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven." However, besides contextually the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31) being that of hard hearted attribution of the Lord's miracles to the devil and the like in resisting the Spirit's conviction, believers are to test prophets, "believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

In chapter 12, we have another adding example of legalistic teaching not seen in the word of God, teaching according to one translation used by Catholics,, "If he who comes is a traveller, help him as much as you can, but he shall not remain with you more than two days, or, if need be, three." The one I am using by Schaff, states "longer than two or three days, unless there be necessity." But nowhere is fasting twice a week on certain days or praying thrice daily the same prayer or restricting hospitality to 2 or 3 days taught as commanded by God.

Finally in chapter 16 we have a the common Catholic misconception:
"But be frequently gathered together seeking the things which are profitable for your souls, for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time."

Which, as meaning believers must attain to absolute perfection of character either here or in Purgatory (though the Didache nowhere infers the latter, but that perfection must be attained in this life) is not what Scripture teaches, in which admittedly imperfect Paul (Philippians 3:12) expressed his desire to depart, and to be with Christ, (Philippians 1:23) as would all the church if the Lord returned in their lifetime, (1 Corinthians 15:51ff; 1 Thessalonians 4:17) and indeed, wherever the NT manifestly speaks of the next reality for believers immediately after this life, it is with the Lord. (Luke 23:43 [cf. 2 Corinthians 12:4; Revelation 2:7]; Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8 ["we"]).

For believers are washed, sanctified and justified, (1 Corinthians 6:11) and accepted in the Beloved, and made to sit with Him in Heaven as souls saved by grace, not works, which is where their citizenship is, and by His sinless shed blood have access with boldness into the holy of holies.

And with the next transformative event being the resurrection. (Ephesians. 1:6; 2:6, 8,9; Philippians 3:20,21; Hebrews 10:19) and that the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life is that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
"The First century also had Bishops, priests, and deacons. These were in Holy Orders. Any thought otherwise is revisionist bias.
Wrong again, and revisionist bias, for aside from deacons, for in the NT, Bishops/episkopos and elders/presbuteros referred to those in one office, the former (episkopos=superintendent or “overseer,”[from “epi” and “skopos” (“watch”) in the sense of “episkopeō,” to oversee, — Strong's) refers to function; the latter (presbuteros=senior) to seniority (in age, implying maturity, or position). Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city, as I had appointed thee: “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless...” (Titus 1:5-7) Paul also "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church," (Acts 20:17) who are said to be episkopos in v. 28. Elders are also what were ordained for every church in Acts 14:23, and bishops along with deacons are the only two classes of clergy whom Paul addresses in writing to the church in Phil. 1:1.

Even Jerome (347-420) admits,
The presbyter is the same as the bishop,...If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age,...it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
"Women and the Priesthood
The Sacrifice of the Mass
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon
Peter and the Papacy (the reason I resigned as a Baptist clergy and joined the Catholic Church)
Real Meaning of "Catholic" According to Church Fathers""
The NT church is nowhere shown looking to Peter as the first in a line of infallible Popes reigning supreme over all the churches from Rome, and Peter is only mentioned in two of Paul's 13 epistles (nor in Revelation's letters), and is even utterly absent from the 34 people he names in his latter to the church at Rome, and nowhere commands particular obedience to Peter.

Unlike you, I was both raised devout RC and later became an active serving member of the RCC for years, after (by God's grace) becoming manifestly born again, and know the profound difference btwn an institutionalized form of Christianity and the transformative effects of true regeneration, in contrast to being seduced to join a church whose distinctives are simply not seen in the only wholly inspired and substantive record of the NT church.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,039.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing to "unpack". Infallible teaching by definition is unchangeable by anyone. It is the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The following document gives the levels of teaching, to which Levels 1 and 2 are infallible: Levels of Teaching within the Catholic Church

I presume you, too, hold to some of the same infallible teachings we do (e.g., divinity of Christ, Virgin Birth, the Trinity, Christ death on the cross to pay for our sins, and His Resurrection that defeated death, absence of error in the inspired sacred texts, etc.)? I also presume that you believe these things cannot be changed by any man?
The point is that there is a lot to unpack. You stand in a tradition that holds some significance on that which the Pope teaches as infallible (yes I do understand that there is a raft of conditions and that this does not apply to every word that a holder of the office utters) and the question of the Ordination of Women which as yet has not been spoken of in an ex-cathedra manner as far as I am aware.

I am more concerned with the message than I am with the gender of the person who holds the office or delivers the message. The Gospel, is after all about what God has done for us, rather than being about what women cannot do.

I don't know that I hold infallible teachings, though clearly I would distinguish between core belief (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, grace) and more general belief (scripture as a vehicle of truth, sacraments as an encounter with Christ, etc). Clearly the Church is called to proclaim the eternal truth in time and space. The temporal expression of that truth may change over time, however the eternal truth will not. The eternal truth can not be changed by any person, for then it will cease to be the truth, however the vehicles in which this truth must be declared must be shaped and moulded in the given arena and much of that must involve a human input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is nothing to "unpack". Infallible teaching by definition is unchangeable by anyone. It is the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The following document gives the levels of teaching, to which Levels 1 and 2 are infallible: Levels of Teaching within the Catholic Church
Meaning Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Which Catholic argues is based upon the (fallacious) premise that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of Divine revelation and inheritors of promises of Divine presence, guidance and preservation means such must be the infallible interpreters of Divine revelation.

Thus in any conflict tradition (in which she differs from the EOs), Scripture and history only validly consists of what Rome says.

And thus you have the recourse of Manning:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228;
"I presume you, too, hold to some of the same infallible teachings we do (e.g., divinity of Christ, Virgin Birth, the Trinity, Christ death on the cross to pay for our sins, and His Resurrection that defeated death, absence of error in the inspired sacred texts, etc.)? I also presume that you believe these things cannot be changed by any man?"

We (evangelical "Bible Christians") have historically concurred on and defended many things Catholicism holds since they are manifestly Scriptural, while rejecting as doctrine things which are not Scriptural, as heretofore described.




 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BroIgnatius

Deliverance Counselor, Apologist, Spiritual Dir
Supporter
Sep 6, 2003
726
306
Just outside the State of Grace
Visit site
✟136,944.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
Meaning Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Which Catholic argues is based upon the (fallacious) premise that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of Divine revelation and inheritors of promises of Divine presence, guidance and preservation means such must be the infallible interpreters of Divine revelation.

Thus in any conflict tradition (in which she differs from the EOs), Scripture and history only validly consists of what Rome says.

And thus you have the recourse of Manning:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228;


We (evangelical "Bible Christians") have historically concurred on and defended many things Catholicism holds since they are manifestly Scriptural, while rejecting as doctrine things which are not Scriptural, as heretofore described.

Cardinal Manning offered his opinion, but it is only opinion, that is rather unique. Cardinal Manning wanted blind faith thinking that appeal to history was treason. This is nonsense. But, he can have his opinion.

As opposed to Cardinal Manning, Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, which is a far more accurate statement. It is the facts of history, plus the facts and teachings of the Bible that convinced me to resign as a Baptist minister to become Catholic. It was the Bible, the King James, by the way, that proved the Catholic Church.

All teachings of the Catholic Church are directly or indirectly Scriptural. The Catholic Church is the only one that can truly say it is truly "Bible Christians" as we do not come up with man-made notions such as sola fidei and sola scriptura. But, we also hold the biblical truth that no all teachings are in the bible: (John 21:25) "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Jesus said we are to be one. Well, today there are about 42,000 Christian groups. The Body of Christ is splintered into 42,000 pieces. That is not what Jesus wanted.

But, there is no point in continuing this since it is unlikely any productive conversation on this subject will proceed. St. Paul, in Titus 3, warns us about unproductive debate.

Thus, I bow out of it. I choose to belong to the Church Jesus founded in 33 A.D. and not be part any longer in "denominations", which "denominationizing" is condemned in 1 Corinthians chapter 1. And do not be duplicitous in arguing that non-denominational congregations are not denominations. That is a typical false argument as there is no such thing. The non-denominational congregations have, by definition, denominated out of all other denominations, unto themselves.

Jesus said we are to be of one baptism and one faith, that faith from the first century which only the Catholic Church hold in its fullness. (historical and biblical provable fact. Jesus mentioned having ears but not hearing).

God Bless

P.S. the bottom line is that these women claim to be Catholic, thus they come under Catholic jurisdiction. This is an internal matter, thus it matter not what non-Catholics think about it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Cardinal Manning offered his opinion, but it is only opinion, that is rather unique. Cardinal Manning wanted blind faith thinking that appeal to history was treason. This is nonsense. But, he can have his opinion.

I did not need to mention Manning to argue that the basis for assurance of Truth for a RC is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise (and its state presupposition) of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

And as said, Rome has indeed presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
As opposed to Cardinal Manning, Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, which is a far more accurate statement. It is the facts of history, plus the facts and teachings of the Bible that convinced me to resign as a Baptist minister to become Catholic. It was the Bible, the King James, by the way, that proved the Catholic Church.
Meaning historical propaganda, which even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against. And rather than RC assurance of the validity or veracity of what is taught being based on examination of evidences and warrant thereby, Pope Pius X teaches,

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906

And Newman states,
He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic....there are doctrines which transcend the discoveries of reason; and, after all, whether they are more or less recommended to us by the one informant or the other, in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.

Likewise
Keating, in regards to the Assumption (which was so lacking even in early historical testimony that Ratzinger attests that "all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...could not belong to the “apostolic tradition," - J. Ratzinger, Milestones, p. 58) asserts,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Yet this implicit assent goes beyond infallible teachings. Newman again,

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. - Life of Cardinal Newman, Vol. 2; Chapter 26. The Deadlock in Higher Education (1867); Newman Reader - Ward's Life of Cardinal Newman - Chapter 26

POPE PIUS XI adds,

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; Casti Connubii (December 31, 1930) | PIUS XI


And as far as "deep in history" goes, Newman also stated,

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius [what the Church taught was believed always by everyone], must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

Also, as I said, the NT church did not look to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning supreme over the church from Rome:

While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope... When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred… (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165-67).


Among others, Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his weighty work, “Papal Primacy,” also finds:

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (
pp. 1-3)

Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,

I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...

This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,224


Other unscriptural developments included religious syncretism, as Newman also attests,

"In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us."

"The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power)


That needs to suffice for now.
All teachings of the Catholic Church are directly or indirectly Scriptural.
Nonsense! You can only say that because the prior premise that Scripture means whatever Rome says it does, or that no Scripture can possibly contract her, since she, and her law, is the supreme standard (sola Roma), not Scripture.

"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that [according to infallible us] the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the [non-inspired] doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." [as the circular premise is false, so is the conclusion] (Providentissimus Deus;Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) | LEO XIII)
The Catholic Church is the only one that can truly say it is truly "Bible Christians" as we do not come up with man-made notions such as sola fidei and sola scriptura. But, we also hold the biblical truth that no all teachings are in the bible:
Which is more nonsense? On one hand you assert that "All teachings of the Catholic Church are directly or indirectly Scriptural" then on the other hand you confess not all teachings are in the bible, which means that you can claim something is Scriptural when it is not even in Scripture.

A prime example is prayer to created beings in Heaven. Prayer/supplication to Heaven being a most basic common practice, then we can expect to see numerous examples of them in Scripture, which we do, approx. 200. And certainly the Holy spirit would include some actual examples of prayer to created beings in Heaven if that took place, especially if the NT church was Catholic, while there was always plenty of angels to pray to in the OT, and people with the same needs Catholics cite as reason to pray to such.

Yet instead we have absolutely zero examples of any prayer by any believers to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. Yet the Holy Spirit does record pagans praying spiritually to created beings.

And any exhortation to spiritual prayer or instruction is only "call upon the Lord/God," "our Father," and never to created beings in Heaven.

Nor is anyone but God shown able to hear from Heaven all prayer, while communication btwn created beings evidently required both to be in the same realm. Angels and elders presenting prayers in memorial before the final judgments upon the earth does not constitute them being prayed to or hearing prayers to them, nor being a regular postal service.

In addition, Christ is stated as being the one Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5) who ever lives to do so, (Hebrew 7:25) and is uniquely qualified to do so, (Hebrews 2:14-16; 4:14-16) and by whom believers have access with boldness into the holy of Holies in Heaven to meet directly with God, and are exhorted to do so, (Hebrew 10:19) and never to pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.

Faced with this inexplicable unjustifiable absence by the Holy Spirit of any examples etc. for their common basic practice, except by pagans, Catholics must resort to their typical egregious extrapolation, reasoning that since we ask others to pray for us hear (if not mentally) then we can do so across the earth/Heaven realms, and that God can enable them to hear all such, and that He does not forbid us to pray to them. But which is simply such a desperate unwarranted conclusion that it is an argument against them being valid Bible interpreters.

What created beings can do while in the same realm does not mean they can transcend both as God, and that God could enable something does not justify presupposing He does, while not being forbidden something does not justify making a doctrine that one is to do something as being Scripture, especially when it is a most common practice, with only exhortations and instructions which are to pray to God.

One might as well teach as doctrine that believers in Heaven can create planets, since we create things on earth, and God could enable us to do so, and nowhere forbids us from doing so, though He only shows Himself as doing so and able to do so, never created beings.

As for sola fide, in contrast to the Cath. strawman, this means that it is only the kind of faith which effects obedience that is salvific, as Luther himself clarified, but that the works themselves do not procure justification, but faith which purifies the heart, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-90 and is counted for righteousness.

Which stands in contrast to RC salvation, in which the actual act of baptism effects regeneration, making one actually good enough to be with God, but if he sins afterwards then one who only can enter Heaven by actually attaining to perfection of character in this life or in purgatory.

As for sola scriptura, it is incontrovertible that as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, to which oral preaching of the word is subject to testing by. (Acts 17:11)

And that Scripture in its formal and material forms provides for what is needed for the Christian, which includes oral preaching of Scriptural proofs, but that unlike men such as the apostles, full inspiration is not claimed for such, nor that of providing new public revelation, nor does Rome claim the same.
(John 21:25) "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
And which is more fallacious support, for rather than this supporting amorphous Catholic oral tradition, what does John say, "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)
Jesus said we are to be one. Well, today there are about 42,000 Christian groups. The Body of Christ is splintered into 42,000 pieces. That is not what Jesus wanted.
Certainly not, regardles of the misleading figure, yet this is no argument for Catholicism, since despite her limited and largely paper unity, and mere organizational Scripturally what one believes is manifest by what they do and effect, and Rome is an amalgamation of member with variegated beliefs, all of whom she typically counts and treats as members in life and in death, from proabortion prosodomite pols pols to SSPX types.

Meanwhile comprehensive doctrinal unity has even been a goal not realized, while the most basic unity is "I in them," (John 17:23) which requires real regeneration with its profound transformative effects, resulting in a unique and wonderful spontaneous union among believers with this shared conversion experience and relationship with the Lord, and walking in it, which I found rare in my years as a Catholic, unlike in conservative evangelicalism.

And surveys find that Catholics disagree with their church as much or more than most others, while those who most strongly esteem Scripture as being the basically literal word of God are the most unified and core beliefs and values.
But, there is no point in continuing this since it is unlikely any productive conversation on this subject will proceed. St. Paul, in Titus 3, warns us about unproductive debate.
What is actually says is But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Which does not apply here, as this is hardly about foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions and strivings about the law. But also,

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. (Titus 3:9-11)

Which means you must consider all others outside Rome to be "heretics," though it is Rome that Scripture refutes.
Thus, I bow out of it. I choose to belong to the Church Jesus founded in 33 A.D. and not be part any longer in "denominations", which "denominationizing" is condemned in 1 Corinthians chapter 1. And do not be duplicitous in arguing that non-denominational congregations are not denominations. That is a typical false argument as there is no such thing. The non-denominational congregations have, by definition, denominated out of all other denominations, unto themselves.
Actually, it is duplicitous to argue that Rome is herself not a denomination, seeing she is, being distinctively and critically different from the NT church, and manifestly invisible in the only wholly inspired substantive record of it.
Jesus said we are to be of one baptism and one faith, that faith from the first century which only the Catholic Church hold in its fullness. (historical and biblical provable fact. Jesus mentioned having ears but not hearing).
I can imagine that repeating such absurd propaganda comforts RCs, or EOs (since they both claim to be the unique one true church), but repeating such an absurd soliloquy is actually an argument against being a Catholic.
God Bless
Bless God
P.S. the bottom line is that these women claim to be Catholic, thus they come under Catholic jurisdiction. This is an internal matter, thus it matter not what non-Catholics think about it.
I know it matters not what anyone says except Rome, yet whenever promoters/defenders of an elitist "one true church" post such on a public forum then it provokes reproof, as would be the case if it was Mormonism. In times past RC laity were not to even argue doctrine on a public forum, while using carnal means to silence those such as me. But thank God we are not longer in those days under your unchanging church.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,382
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,039.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
I am sorry, I have to admit that I struggle with this kind of reasoning. In an ideal world I would wish that such could be true, however at many turns, and many twists, despite here best efforts the Church has been mistaken. I think it was Chrysostom who suggested that the world had gone mad and woke up Arian. The Church has forever been influenced by many things, and I have seen the political machinations of the world come to play and people try to bend the Church this way and that at at times the Church has made mistakes, and it is a flawed institution, though by no means utterly flawed.

The ideal of Church, and the pragmatic reality of Church, are not always as finely coalesced as one would like. That does not mean that one should give up on the Church, however I am not sure that I can go so far as the assert that the mere fact that the Church teaches a doctrine as definitely true is a guarantee of it's veracity.

One of the sacred gifts bestowed on each one of us is intellect, and we do no service to our creator if we do not use it. It is like the lady given beautiful linen for her wedding, too good to use, and she kept them in pride of place in the linen cupboard. When she died in old age the children found them in the cupboard, and as they unwrapped them, for the first time ever, they simply dissolved in dust and ashes to floor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am sorry, I have to admit that I struggle with this kind of reasoning. In an ideal world I would wish that such could be true, however at many turns, and many twists, despite here best efforts the Church has been mistaken. I think it was Chrysostom who suggested that the world had gone mad and woke up Arian. The Church has forever been influenced by many things, and I have seen the political machinations of the world come to play and people try to bend the Church this way and that at at times the Church has made mistakes, and it is a flawed institution, though by no means utterly flawed.

The ideal of Church, and the pragmatic reality of Church, are not always as finely coalesced as one would like. That does not mean that one should give up on the Church, however I am not sure that I can go so far as the assert that the mere fact that the Church teaches a doctrine as definitely true is a guarantee of it's veracity.

One of the sacred gifts bestowed on each one of us is intellect, and we do no service to our creator if we do not use it. It is like the lady given beautiful linen for her wedding, too good to use, and she kept them in pride of place in the linen cupboard. When she died in old age the children found them in the cupboard, and as they unwrapped them, for the first time ever, they simply dissolved in dust and ashes to floor.
And what Keating is also essentially asserting is that, "The mere fact that the Church infallibly teaches the doctrine of the ensured magisterial infallibility as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
 
Upvote 0