Catholic?

[Anthony Edgar]

What about just believing the Bible ?

The problem with that approach is, it doesn't give the reader the full picture of Christianity, as taught by the apostles - only Scripture AND Tradition (ie, the traditions taught by the apostles) can.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Since Christianity is found only in the Bible

False. Christianity is found only in the Church. The Bible is a product of the Church. Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even have a Bible.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

God love my sister but can you take the time to read the Bible and post the Scripture that validates "Apostolic Succession"?????

Where in the New Testament does it say that everything pertaining to Christianity is found within its pages?

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Purgatory is strictly a RCC teaching from men and has no Bible basis whatsoever.

"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (Matthew 5:25-26).

 

[Anthony Edgar]

But surely anything pertaining to the church, its doctrines or traditions should be backed up with scripture?

Not necessarily. Nowhere in the NT does it say everything pertaining to the Church is presented in Scripture. That is why the Catholic Church relies on Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

In no way should any person look up to, follow, or elevate a human leader in any religious or church organization above Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church agrees with you. But Jesus appointed certain men to teach and lead His Church on earth.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

Where does the infallible sacred tradition come from and how do you know it's infallible and who proclaimed it to be infallible?

It came initially from the apostles, who were taught by Jesus and later guided by the Holy Spirit. The teaching and practices handed down by the apostles have been passed on faithfully by the Church ever since. Some evolutions of the original teachings and practices have been adopted by the Church - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - over the centuries.

 

[ralfyman]

That is what the theory of Sacred Tradition says--or to be more precise, that is what the churches which follow it say that it amounts to.

The facts of history are quite to the contrary, however.

In short, not much can be gained in a discussion like this one simply by stating the storyline used by ones denomination, whether that is Mormons claiming that the golden plates were real and ancient, Jehovah's Witnesses claiming that the church apostacized with the death of the last Apostle, or the Catholic Church saying that Jesus chose a line of bishops of Rome to head his one and only church throughout time.

Those are just what those churches want their people to believe. But it is the actual history that matters.

No facts can be used to prove that something is sacred.

What is clear, though, is that there is a tradition, it existed before the Bible was formed, and it led to the selection of books for the Bible.

 

[ralfyman]

It Is really sad to me to see anyone who is a Catholic be so misinformed that they would believe such a statement.

I know that your local church has told you such a thing but it is not so my friend.

What is even more sad is that so many people believe what you said and the real fact is they do not read the Bible to know the difference.

In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever.

The way you are believing is almost as if the Catholic church created God.

If you had read the Bible itself you would have seen in 2 Tim. 3:16 . ………..
"All scripture is inspired of God...".

Then Peter said in his 2 epistle, 1:21...……...
"...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Then Jesus said in Matt. 24:35...…….
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

Then in 1 Peter 1:24-25...….
"The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever."

Just so that you will know, the Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

My "local church" did not say that. History did. Look up the process by which the canon of the Bible was formed. That is all you need to know that you are wrong.

 

[PoppyB]

It came initially from the apostles, who were taught by Jesus and later guided by the Holy Spirit. The teaching and practices handed down by the apostles have been passed on faithfully by the Church ever since. Some evolutions of the original teachings and practices have been adopted by the Church - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - over the centuries.

What about these original teachings and practices passed on by the apostles, where do they fit into the RCC?

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there was no needy person among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Acts 4:32-35

[ Good order in worship ] What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 1 Corinthians 14:26

 

[Radagast]

Sola Scriptura????

What about just believing the Bible ?

Yes, that's what Sola Scriptura means.

 

[Radagast]

Of which the final selections were made only by the fourth century, and guided by various doctrines and practices.

Actually, no.

The bulk of the N.T. as recognised as inspired very early on. The final decisions did not relate to "doctrines and practices," but to whether they were written by an Apostle (or by a close associate of an Apostle, like Mark or Luke).

 

[concretecamper]

Our friends were was politely saying that although his church believes in Purgatory, and has its reasons, the concept doesn't have Biblical backing.

Another false characterization. The need for purification after death IS biblical.

And that is quite true; the doctrine of Purgatory was created only in the 15th century and is currently being redefined by the Catholic Church to make it more palatable to modern-day Catholics who won't accept a teaching about a true believer in Christ having to be tortured for small sins and ones already forgiven, simply because that was the perspective of the Middle Ages with its torture chambers, Inquisitions, witch hunts, and superstitions. Notice, for instance, how purging from sin in Purgatory is now being described as purification. That's a much less frightening word, isn't it?

There you go getting hung up on when the word purgatory was coined. And there you go intentionally misrepresenting the aspects of the doctrine of purgatory.

I would invite @PoppyB to do some independent research rather than listen to this fairy tale of an explanation.

 

[concretecamper]

The bulk of the N.T. as recognised as inspired very early on.

there were also many other books read at the liturgy that people thought were inspired....100's.

The final decisions did not relate to "doctrines and practices," but to whether they were written by an Apostle (or by a close associate of an Apostle, like Mark or Luke)

Wrong. The Church, His Bride, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, recognized the inspired texts. The inspired texts were those that conformed to the Traditions of the Church which were/are the teachings of Christ.

 

[concretecamper]

First, the selection wasn't made by the Roman Catholic Church

So which Church did Pope Damasus belong to?

 

[concretecamper]

@PoppyB

Here is the Gospel reading from last Sunday. Meditate on what it must mean. Jesus promised the Spirit, to guide the Church. Sola Sciptura is against Jesus' own words.

Jesus said to his disciples:
"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth,
he will guide you to all truth.
He will not speak on his own,
but he will speak what he hears,
and will declare to you the things that are coming.
He will glorify me,
because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Everything that the Father has is mine;
for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine
and declare it to you."

 

[Radagast]

there were also many other books read at the liturgy that people thought were inspired....100's.

Such as... ?

The Church, His Bride, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, recognized the inspired texts.

That much I agree with.

The inspired texts were those that conformed to the Traditions of the Church which were/are the teachings of Christ.

But if you read what the early Christians actually wrote, the debate was not so much "do we agree with this teaching?" but "who wrote it, and when?"

Irenaeus, for example, criticises the Gnostic "gospels" because they were written much later than the real ones (and not by Apostles). Eusebius likewise expresses doubts about Revelation, on the ground of authorship ("that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written.")

 

[concretecamper]

Such as...

The Corinthians read Clement's letter at their Liturgy.

But if you read what the early Christians actually wrote, the debate was not so much "do we agree with this teaching?" but "who wrote it, and when?"

debate was on both.

Irenaeus, for example, criticises the Gnostic "gospels" because they were written much later than the real ones (and not by Apostles).

this is an example of authorship. Ok.

 

[Albion]

No, because the Catholic Church and it's practices and doctrines - handed down from the apostles - existed well before the NT did. The early Christians were taught and led by the Church, not the Bible.

That's what every Catholic schoolboy and girl is taught, all right. But little of it is factually correct and, what's more, reciting it here doesn't help us with this discussion.

 

[Albion]

What is clear, though, is that there is a tradition, it existed before the Bible was formed, and it led to the selection of books for the Bible.

No, that isn't true about "Sacred Tradition" either. The concept says that if the belief in question was held throughout the church and from the beginning forward, then that consensus of the people of God can be considered divine in origin, another revelation like the Bible books.

But the fact of the matter is that history is clear in telling us that these doctrines that are attributed to Sacred Tradition are not traditional. Many can be shown to have been one side of the argument at an early time but also that there were other prominent churchmen writing the exact opposite. These, of course, are ignored when the doctrine is formalized and justified as true by "Sacred Tradition!"

But in addition to that, there isn't any basis for having some authority called Sacred Tradition in the first place. There is no warrant for it to be found in Scripture, which we all agree IS the word of God.