Catholic?

[Albion]

I don't know how you can read your bible and still believe that the points Major 1 made are incorrect or open to question.

Okay, then I will give you some example. No one is commanded, in the RCC, to call pastors father. What's more, in the Bible there are examples of mortals being called father, so that claim is false.

And for another one, the baptism of infants is not a Catholic issue. Most of the denominations in existence--Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox--baptize infants, and it is because the Bible does indeed indicate that they were. The suggestion that anyone teaches that salvation is impossible unless the person is baptized is pure fantasy. That is NOT a teaching.

In sum, this discussion really should be about the plausibility of Roman Catholicism (that is where the thread started), not what is objectionable to Baptists about Catholicism. That's not at all what the writer of the original post asked.

 

[Major1]

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.

2 Timothy 2:15 ………...

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. "

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible.
What is sola scriptura?

 

[Albion]

Yes He did. The Protestant church agrees with you.

Not exactly. Over 200 million Protestants belong to churches which have bishops in Apostolic Succession.

 

[Not David]

I can not agree with your opinion and I do not think many others can either.

Any time the church. ANY church is placed in a position of more power and authority than God Himself, that my friend is a real problem even if you can not see that.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the late 4th century long after the Council of Nicea. The Roman Catholic Church neither invented nor created the Holy Bible. The books of the Holy Bible were well recognized in ancient days as we can well see from early church quotations in Ante-Nicene fathers’ writings.

The Council of Nice did not pick and choose which books would or would not go into the Bible. They simply and publicly testified what books were already recognized by Christ’s universal church, having a great consensus among themselves. The later Roman Catholic Church only gathered the manuscripts.
The Roman Catholic Church did NOT give us the Bible

Not true, the Roman Church existed since Paul's time. It had communion with Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople.
Meanwhile, Protestants are a novelty and Sola Scriptura even more.

 

[Major1]

Okay, then I will give you some example. No one is commanded, in the RCC, to call pastors father. What's more, in the Bible there are examples of mortals being called father, so that claim is false.

And for another one, the baptism of infants is not a Catholic issue. Most of the denominations in existence--Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox--baptize infants, and it is because the Bible does indeed indicate that they were. The suggestion that anyone teaches that salvation is impossible unless the person is baptized is pure fantasy. That is NOT a teaching.

In sum, this discussion really should be about the plausibility of Roman Catholicism (that is where the thread started), not what is objectionable to Baptists about Catholicism. That's not at all what the writer of the original post asked.

Albion....I appreciate your input as you seem to be a well educated person in theology and I do not like the idea of debating such obviouse differences.

Now, are you telling me that all the years I have observed Catholic friends calling there priest "Father" is not happening???

Wait, you said "No one is commanded in the RCC to call pastors FATHER".
So you are saying that even thought it is done, it is not sanctioned by the RCC.

Would that not then beg the question that if it is rejected by Jesus Christ, why wouldn't the RCC stop the practice centuries ago???

Then pray tell WHY do they all do that????? Could it then be because it is a TRADITION????

From https://catholicexchange.com/priests-called-father
"Since the earliest times of our Church, we have used the title “Father” for religious leaders. Bishops, who are the shepherds of the local Church community and the authentic teachers of the faith, were given the title “Father.”


As for Infant baptism, may I posted the following articles...........

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people . . .”

Pope Eugene IV here defined from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is a heretic, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 ‐ Condemning the articles of John Wyclif ‐ Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” ‐ Condemned.

The teaching of the Catholic Church already cited shows that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. I am puzzeled as to why you would want to argue such an obvious teaching.

Obviously, therefore, this means that children and infants also cannot get to Heaven without Baptism because they are conceived in a state of original sin, which cannot be removed without the Sacrament of Baptism according to the RCC.

 

[Major1]

Not exactly. Over 200 million Protestants belong to churches which have bishops in Apostolic Succession.

That does not make it Biblically correct my brother. Majority does not rule and you know as well as I do that there is NO direction or command for there to be any Apostolic succession.

 

[Major1]

Not true, the Roman Church existed since Paul's time. It had communion with Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople.
Meanwhile, Protestants are a novelty and Sola Scriptura even more.

Another incorrect statement.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following:
1). praying to Mary,
2). praying to the saints,
3) venerating Mary,
4). submitting to a pope,
5). having a select priesthood,
6). baptizing an infant,
7). observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments,
8). or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.

All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

 

[Albion]

Not true, the Roman Church existed since Paul's time. It had communion with Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople.

Yes, it did. That is to say that there was a diocese centered on Rome, but that does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church, the institution most people would describe as a denomination, existed at that time. It took centuries before that happened.

On the other hand, half of the issues in the list we have seen here apply to a wide range of churches, not just the RCC, but are just not palatable to Baptists.

If the discussion is to be which of these is better--Catholic Church or Baptist Church--I think we are doing a disservice to our inquirer who didn't at all indicate any interest in choosing a denomination as far from Roman Catholicism as might be possible.

 

[Concord1968]

Sola Scriptura is correctly understood as the teaching by which everything a Christian needs for salvation and holy living is contained solely in the Bible.

Actually, what you just described is Nuda Scriptura NOT Sola Scripture.

Sola Scriptura allows for other sources of authority, they just need to be tested against the infallible authority of scripture so as not to contradict. This is why the Protestant Reformers like Luther and Calvin extensively quoted Church Fathers in support of their doctrine.

Nuda Scripture, on the other hand, allows for no other sources of authority at all.

 

[Not David]

Another incorrect statement.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following:
1). praying to Mary,
2). praying to the saints,
3) venerating Mary,
4). submitting to a pope,
5). having a select priesthood,
6). baptizing an infant,
7). observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments,
8). or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.

All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

They are all accepted by the Ancient Apostolic Churches (except the Pope one) Roman centrism doesn't let you see that.

 

[Not David]

Yes, it did. That is to say that there was a diocese centered on Rome, but that does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church, the institution most people would describe as a denomination, existed at that time. It took centuries before that happened.

On the other hand, half of the issues in the list we have seen here apply to a wide range of churches, not just the RCC, but are just not palatable to Baptists.

If the discussion is to be which of these is better--Catholic Church or Baptist Church--I think we are doing a disservice to our inquirer who didn't at all indicate any interest in choosing a denomination as far from Roman Catholicism as might be possible.

We could agree that there were innovation, otherwise I would be Catholic but that didn't happened at that time.

 

[Albion]

Actually, what you just described is Nuda Scriptura NOT Sola Scripture.

Sola Scriptura allows for other sources of authority, they just need to be tested against the infallible authority of scripture so as not to contradict. This is why the Protestant Reformers like Luther and Calvin extensively quoted Church Fathers in support of their doctrine.

Nuda Scripture, on the other hand, allows for no other sources of authority at all.

It depends on what is done with the information. If, for instance, a church says that it believes something because that is believed to be what history says the early church believed, but no one is under any obligation to agree in his own mind, and it is not said to be something that must be believed because ones salvation depends on it, then okay. But when a church makes essential dogma out of such a thing, that is improper. And if the dogma is said to be based on Sacred Tradition in particular, but there is no tradition involved, that is also wrong.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

1. Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden.

I can't find any such prohibition in the Bible, which is just a silly distortion of Matt 23, in which Jesus says to not address any "man on earth" as "father" (Matt 23) - yet...

- in Acts 22;1, Paul addresses the Jewish religious leaders as “fathers”;

- in 1Cor 4:15, Paul says “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel”;

- in Philemon 10, Paul says he has become a spiritual “father”;

- in Acts 7:2, Stephen addressed the Jewish religious leaders as “Fathers” in Acts 7:2;

- there many places in Acts where the Jewish
ancestors are called “fathers”;

- Jesus describes the rich man calling out to “Father Abraham” in the parable in Luke 16:24.

Furthermore, If Jesus forbade Christians calling any man “father”, then (in the same passage from Matt 23) He also forbade calling any man “teacher”. So I hope you don’t refer to anyone as a “teacher”, or indeed a “doctor” (since “doctor” comes from the Latin for “teacher”).

6. Celibacy was first enforced for priests and bishops by Pope Gregory VII.

So what? Where does the Bible say the leader of the Church can’t insist that priests be celibate?

 

[TKA_TN]

Another incorrect statement.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following:
1). praying to Mary,
2). praying to the saints,
3) venerating Mary,
4). submitting to a pope,
5). having a select priesthood,
6). baptizing an infant,
7). observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments,
8). or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.

All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

Agree with 1-4 and 8. Peter said baptism is for “you and your children” I’m acts 2.

7. Jesus said to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them in the Trinitarian formula. He also told us to “do this in remembrance of me” when instituting Holy Communion. Paul also mentions partaking of communion in 1 Corinthians.

 

[TKA_TN]

Actually, what you just described is Nuda Scriptura NOT Sola Scripture.

Sola Scriptura allows for other sources of authority, they just need to be tested against the infallible authority of scripture so as not to contradict. This is why the Protestant Reformers like Luther and Calvin extensively quoted Church Fathers in support of their doctrine.

Nuda Scripture, on the other hand, allows for no other sources of authority at all.

Thank you for clarifying this. As a fellow LCMS member, I appreciate when this is explained like this.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

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

It didn't work out in the long run for a larger population - socialism never does.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

So which Church did Pope Damasus belong to?

Perhaps he was a Baptist.

 

[Anthony Edgar]

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.

What did the early Christians use as their guide before the NT was written, if not the leaders of the Church?

 

[concretecamper]

What did the early Christians use as their guide before the NT was written, if not the leaders of the Church?

Jesus commanded us to listen to the Church. If there is a scriptural passage that tells us to listen to the bible, then PLEASE, someone please show us all. Until then, I'll follow the bible, not some man made innovation.