Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

[PeaceByJesus]

In the 16 Century Latin was a common/universal Language much as english is today and most people understood it . there were multiple languages at that time and Latin united the roman empire . Greek was another common language .

Contrary to "most people understood" Latin, though illiterate, one of your own, RC anti-Protestant Mark Bonocore states,

Protestant reformers used vernacular languages...The Bible could very much be understood by people with the intelligence and ability to understand its theological content -- most of whom spoke Latin. Most common people of the time, however, could understand neither the language nor the content... -catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.php

But regardless,

At that time the Catholic Church read the full NT and OT ( except for genealogies ) in a three year cycle . The Orthodox Churches were also liturgical and did the same ....

At that point of history illiteracy was common , but people would hear all of the Scripture at Mass . .

Where are you getting this propaganda? It certainly is not true in the recent past or now:

The Catholic Study Bible: At mid-twentieth century the Scripture were read in Latin at Mass. There were few selections from the Old Testament, and a rather small number of New Testament passages dominated...At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts...Now the texts of the Bible form the primary resource for Catholic religious education at all levels. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16)

• U.S,. conference Catholic bishops:

. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.

Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation...Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.

Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so... The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. (Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings)

Even by 1951 just 22.4% of the gospels and 16.5% of all the NT was read on Sundays and major feast days, and just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days (readings from the Old Testament were not used on Sundays). (Lectionary Statistics)

While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, contrary to some Catholics who claim that they hear most of the entire Bible at Mass, attendees still hear only a small percentage of the whole Bible (at best less than 35% even for daily Mass-going RCs) and most of what is heard is redundant), and thus typical Mass-going Catholics will hardly obtain much of a functional knowledge of Scripture. For the average Catholic does not even go to Mass weekly, which would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible during the reading cycle, let alone faithfully attend Mass daily ( few can, and according to a Catholic source, fewer than 1 percent of Catholics attend daily Mass: www.lifezette.com/faithzette/going-daily-mass-changed-life/)), which would be required in order to hear 27.5% of the entire Bible, excluding Psalms, a few verses of which are read during the liturgy (calculation is of 4179 out of 33001 verses for Sunday Masses, and 9067 out of 33001 for Sunday and weekday masses based on stats from the aforementioned lectionary page.).

I also found a Catholic poster (Todd Easton: Reading the Entire Bible in 3 Years at Mass?) who calculated that if one faithfully one goes to Sunday and daily mass then these RCs only hear 30% of the entire Catholic bible, and faithful Sunday-only Mass attendees only hear 14% of the same. Of course, liberal Protestants most likely hear even less, and like Catholics, but in contrast to evangelicals overall, they testify to engaging in little personal Bible reading.

As Martin Luther said " without the Catholic Church we would have no knowledge of the scriptures " . Out Monks Catholic/Orthodox copied,( hand written scripture ) for 1500 years

Of what polemical import is this? Is your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God)? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

If you can show me one official document from the Catholic/Orthodox church which denied scriptures to the faithful I would like to see it

Why is this relevant? I never argued otherwise, but that Rome came to hinder personal access and literacy in Scripture, as documented.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Scripture does not interpret itself . Were the first Christian Bishops Baptists, Lutherines , Catholic ,Orthodox , 7 Day Adventists ......................

They were none of the above in all points, but noble Truth-loving souls"received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

Doing so reveals that Rome is the most manifest deformation of the NT church, and while all fall short of the prima NT church under the uniquely manifest apostles of Christ. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10) yet to the degree that a church retains and preaches the convicting gospel of grace, of salvation by grave thru heart-purifying, justifying faith, then they are part of the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell, that being the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) which uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

Just read the early Church Fathers , all of them ( which is not a impossible task - it took me 2 years ) and see if they had a consensus of understanding . Read the documents of the 7 Ecuminical Councils and see what they focused on . They evidence does not point to a divided Protestisim but a common share belief .

They also disagreed to some degree, and it is thought that we only have a small portion of all they are estimated to have written, and if degrees of unity are determinative if validity than cults would win.

More critically, the uninspired writings of men simply cannot be determinative what the NT church believed in contrast the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), as revealed in Acts thru Revelation, which Catholicism stands in the most manifest contrast to. And which i have read thru more than you read your so-called church fathers.

The Orthodox and Rome have our own dispute as to who deviated from the path . But we share a common belief in many things . It is well documented and historically validated .

The argument that there were different opinion amongst some early Church Fathers is true , but consenis was built and settled at the 7 Councils . The Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts was our model . By reading these documents, you may find some disturbing Catholic/Orthodox things.

That is a white wash of the substantial differences that remain which have prevented union for 1,000 years.

Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. — Against Ecumenism

Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — Part III: Eastern Orthodoxy: Never The Twain Should Meet – The War Against Being

You will not find such a consensus in Protestantism

Of course not for "Protestant" is so widely defined hangar that you could fit a Unitarian, Scientology, Swedenborgian, Mormonic A380s in it, while I have found most unity of the Spirit aming evangelicals than ever in my years as a practicing RC, who are a variegated amalgam of variant beliefs along with a basic unity.

The way your unity argument would be valid is if you can show that Reformation distinctives, at least the most fundamental, cannot result/never have effected a real member-level unity that is of greater Scriptural quality than that which can be shown to have resulted from basic Catholic distinctives as long as these distinctives are maintained.

In Catholicism, in which "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" (VEHEMENTER NOS, Pope Pius X, 1906) and who traditionally had coercive power to enforce this, then you have real unity insofar as they do so, and do not begin to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidential warrant for them, or variantly interpret them or the magisterial level they belong to, which is is the reality in modern times, especially since losing the sword of men to deal with dissent.

And if the laity do obey the requirement of "submitting with docility to their [pastors] judgment" then when they go South, then so do their followers, which can result in the scenario preceding the Reformation, in which according to even men such as Bellarmine and Ratzinger,

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Cardinal Bellarmine. Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility – White Horse Inn) ​

However, when Scripture is the the supreme standard then since it never changes and goes "South," then though who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God can be expected be the most unified in essential and core beliefs, as they have testified to being, in contrast to those Rome counts and treats as members.

Catholics who attempt to use the unity polemic are ignorant both of their own disunity and the spurious nature of comparing one church with an admixture of ones who mostly reject the most fundamental Reformation distinctive and even the core Truths we agree with Catholics one, at least according to the formal statements of the latter.

Moreover, in addition to the mostly paper unity of Catholicism, this still leaves vast room for disagreements, and comprehensive doctrinal unity was a ever a goal not realized, and thus the issue of unity is that of a matter of scope and degrees.

But in Scripture we see unity of heart based on basics (the theological detailed depth of faith was not what they could be expected to be conscious of) which is what is most effectual. Concerning which the reknowned Baptist Charles Spurgeon, attests in teaching on Jn. 17,

In all the truly Elect children of God who are called, and chosen, and faithful, there is a bond of Divine mysterious Love running right through the whole, and they are one and must be one, the Holy Spirit being the life which unites them.

There are tokens which evidence this union, and prove that the people of God are one. We hear much moaning over our divisions. There may be some who are to be deplored among ecclesiastical confederacies, but in the spiritual Church Unity in Christ of the Living God, I am really at a loss to discover the divisions which are so loudly proclaimed. It strikes me that the tokens of union are much more prominent than the tokens of division.

But what are they? First there is a union in judgment upon all vital matters. I converse with a spiritual man, and no matter what he calls himself, when we talk of sin, pardon, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and such like themes, we are agreed. We speak of our blessed Lord. My friend says that Jesus is fair and lovely - so do I. He says that he has nothing else to trust to but the precious blood; nor have I anything else. I tell him that I find myself a poor, weak creature; he laments the same. I live in his house a little while - we pray together at the family altar, you could not tell which it was that prayed, Calvinist or Arminian, we pray so exactly alike, and when we open the hymn book, very likely if he happens to be a Wesleyan he chooses to sing, "Jesus, lover of my soul." I will sing it, and then next morning he will sing with me, "Rock of Ages, cleft for me." If the Spirit of God is in us, we are all agreed upon great points.

...leave the letter and get to the spirit, crack the shells and eat the kernel of spiritual truth, and you will find that the points of agreement between genuine Christians are something marvelous. But this union is to be seen most plainly in union of heart . I am told that Christians do not love each other. I am very sorry if that is true, but I rather doubt it, for I suspect that those who do not love each other are not Christians. Where the Spirit of God is there must be love, and if I have once known and recognized any man to be my Brother in Christ Jesus, the love of Christ compels me no more to think of him as a stranger or foreigner, but a fellow citizen with the saints...

Believers address the Throne of Grace in the same style, whatever may be the particular form which their Church organization may have assumed. So is it with praise . There, indeed, we are as one, and our music goes up with sweet accord to the Throne of Heavenly Grace. Beloved, we are one in action; true Christians everywhere are all doing the same work. Here is a Brother preaching; I do not care about that white thing he has on, but if he is a genuine Christian, he is preaching Christ Crucified; and here am I, and he may not like me because I have not that white rag on, but still I delight to preach Christ Crucified. When you come to the real lifework of the Christian, it is the same in every case, it is holding up the Cross of Christ! - Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 12: 1866 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Although upon doctrines of grace our views differ from those avowed by Arminian Methodists, we have usually found that on the great evangelical truths we are in full agreement, and we have been comforted by the belief that Wesleyans were solid upon the central doctrines.

Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The further you get from the reformation the more confusing/divided things get amongst Protestants , Pentecostals ........................................ . Martin Luther himself said " I tried to get rid of one pope and I created ten. " This is a historical quote . not made up . It is a reality your not willing to admit to .

And it is also amateur hour Catholic apologetics for the reasons already given. Read them. You have have your unholy mixed multitude unity along with liberal Prots, while I and survey after survey finds those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God can be expected be the most unified essential and core beliefs, and thus they even vote as the most unified religious block, except for the minority in which money trumps morals.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Depends on which cow they are getting their milk from . Whos truth ? Which Minister ? Which cow are they milking ?

St Augustine 392 ad" the Catholic church is the work of divine providence achieved through, the prophecies of the prophets, through the incarnation and teaching of Christ through the journeys of the apostles, through the suffering , the crosses , the blood and death of the martyrs , through the the admirable lives of the saints ... when , then ,we see so much help on Gods part , so much progress and so much fruit ,Shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church ? For starting with the Apostolic chair down through the succession of Bishops ,even unto the open confession of all mankind , it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."

This is not my quote He says some interesting things about Rome too .

The contrast is btwn the prophecies of the prophets, through the incarnation and teaching of Christ through the journeys of the apostles, through the suffering" of the NT church," and the progressive contrast to it, which even research of Catholics, among others, attests.

 

[Arsenios]

Where did I say Jesus had to prove Himself with Scripture?... I said He did...

Amen!

Which mystical maturity (which i must seek) is not to be espoused without a solid basis for it, which foundation Scripture is as the only wholly inspired and substantial body of Divine Truth.

Rom_7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the Body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
1Co_10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?
1Co_12:27 Now ye ARE the Body of Christ, and members in particular.
Eph_4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

The Body of Divine Truth IS the Body of Christ which WE ARE, and our members in particular...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the Body of Divine Truth...

Once again you argue as if i argued for merely intellectual knowledge, rather than reading and studying books being consistent with not only overcoming sin, but of growing in the grace and knowledge of God, letting the word of Christ dwell in one richly, and being instruments of righteousness in confronting the world of sin with the claims of Christ, who died and rose according to the Scriptures, and reproving error... Enough with your strawmen and false dichotomies.

I argue Christ crucified, and we to follow Him... "rather than reading and studying books" as you argue...

...understanding the milk of the word and going on to the meat.

I am glad you see the written as milk now, even if you do not perhaps yet espouse repentance and taking up one's cross in denial of self and following Christ as the meat...

Indeed, but Repentance is grounded in Biblical Theology.

It is Grounded in Christ the Word of Truth Who is recorded as commanding His Disciples in Matthew 28:19-20 : Go forth and be ye discipling all the Nations, Baptizing them... And teaching them ALL..."

Discipleship is not a Biblical Theology Class...

Which union and theology comes by the revelation of the word of God, which Scripture most assuredly is. And the rest is details.

Only Christ HAS Christ to GIVE to us in UNION with Himself...
The Bible is about that Union...

Theology is not apart from the study from books, despite your exaltation of direct reveals based upon the ensured veracity of your church.

Theology is KNOWING GOD... It is UNION with Him that He alone can give...

Book study only gives us knowledge ABOUT God...
...

What a contrivance.

Brother, I feel your pain!

I never realized how cultic the Orthodox could be.

And you have not yet even scratched the surface!

We have, for instance, in Romania, in the national forest there, women living in winter underground in holes in the ground (old growth wind-fall tree root systems, I suspect), praying and laboring night and day, eating little and sleeping less - And they are doing so for you, my Brother, and for me... And they will continue to do so... the park rangers bring them food from time to time, and know where they abide in Christ, and minister thereby to the world...

I think we are done.

I pray we are not, but whatever you decide, please pray for me and I will pray for you, and we will meet again, in this life or the next, God willing...

Arsenios

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Amen!



Rom_7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the Body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
1Co_10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?
1Co_12:27 Now ye ARE the Body of Christ, and members in particular.
Eph_4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

The Body of Divine Truth IS the Body of Christ which WE ARE, and our members in particular...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the Body of Divine Truth...

It was for good reason Peter warned,

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

The very fact that the Lord and His disciples referred to "the Scriptures" as authoritative writings of God means that there was a distinctive class of a body of such writings which being from God are therefore Truth. So much for your typical attack on this authoritative body.

Next, "dead to the law by the Body of Christ" is not referring the church as the body of Christ, which did not die to free us from the Law of sin and death (Romans 8:2) nor do we marry the church, but it refers to the death of Christ, who by His sacrificial death "hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)

Next, "the Communion of the Body of Christ" "Now ye ARE the Body of Christ," does not make it the revelatory body of Truth, for though it is to reveal Christ, showing that it is of the living God in word and deed, yet it does not replace the only body of Truth which is said to be wholly inspired of God, nor can the church claim to be pure express word of God in all its depth, since its members sin and some fall away.

Next, "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ," reveals the unlike Scripture, the church needs work, being immature in its expression of Christ, for unlike the word of God, "in many things we offend all." (James 3:2)

Thus despite you default "either/or" erroneous thinking, the church being a (imperfect) body expressing Christ, neither excludes Scripture from being the only wholly inspired substantive body of express Divine Truth nor make the church its equal. Instead it depends upon Scripture.

I argue Christ crucified, and we to follow Him... "rather than reading and studying books" as you argue...

Once again, this is not an "either/or" situation, for instead to know of Christ crucified and to follow Him requires as assured revelatory source, to which the Lord and disciple themselves appealed to.

...understanding the milk of the word and going on to the meat.

I am glad you see the written as milk now, even if you do not perhaps yet espouse repentance and taking up one's cross in denial of self and following Christ as the meat..

.
What is this? I had already affirmed that the word is both milk and meat - refuting you who restricted to only being the former - as well as affirming that it is the word which works and requires penitent obedient faith - versus your ether/or erroneous thinking, and now you resort to this?!

Indeed, but Repentance is grounded in Biblical Theology.

It is Grounded in Christ the Word of Truth Who is recorded as commanding His Disciples in Matthew 28:19-20 : Go forth and be ye discipling all the Nations, Baptizing them... And teaching them ALL..."

And I already affirmed "Repentance is prior to understanding Theology" and clarified mere intellectual faith is not saving faith, so what is this? To be grounded in Biblical Theology is to see that penitent faith and obedience is required to Christ the Word of Truth, and defines discipleship. Certainly one can substitute mere learning for obedience, but it is not an either/or situation. Study is part of obedience. (Ps. 1; 2 Timothy 2:15)

Only Christ HAS Christ to GIVE to us in UNION with Himself...
The Bible is about that Union..
Theology is KNOWING GOD... It is UNION with Him that He alone can give...

.
Listen. The Scriptures/the assured word of God is no mere story book, but is living and "life" because it is wholly inspired of God and by His Spirit who inspired it instrumentally enables and provides revelation from Him whereby one can come to "know" God/Christ and being in union with Him and have eternal life, ( 1 John 5:13) and be equipped "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Theology is KNOWING GOD... It is UNION with Him that He alone can give...

Wrong. Theology is the description of what the word of God teaches (doctrines) resulting from the study of Divine revelation. And without a substantive reliable standard of Divine revelation "union with God" can mean anything.

And you have not yet even scratched the surface!
We have, for instance, in Romania, in the national forest there, women living in winter underground in holes in the ground (old growth wind-fall tree root systems, I suspect), praying and laboring night and day, eating little and sleeping less - And they are doing so for you, my Brother, and for me... And they will continue to do so... the park rangers bring them food from time to time, and know where they abide in Christ, and minister thereby to the world...

I feel for them (esp. as one at close to the same latitude) know somewhat about prayer, labor, hunger and cold in service to the Lord and gospel (without getting into details), yet it is cults who often show the greatest dedication, the point being that the validity of this also is subject to testing by Scripture.

I pray we are not, but whatever you decide, please pray for me and I will pray for you, and we will meet again, in this life or the next, God willing... Arsenios

I will pray for you, and have tried to obey 2 Timothy 2:25 here, if not enough.

Bye.

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

Contrary to "most people understood" Latin, though illiterate, one of your own, RC anti-Protestant Mark Bonocore states,

Protestant reformers used vernacular languages...The Bible could very much be understood by people with the intelligence and ability to understand its theological content -- most of whom spoke Latin. Most common people of the time, however, could understand neither the language nor the content... -catholicbridge.com/catholic/did_the_catholic_church_forbid_bible_reading.php

But regardless,


Where are you getting this propaganda? It certainly is not true in the recent past or now:

The Catholic Study Bible: At mid-twentieth century the Scripture were read in Latin at Mass. There were few selections from the Old Testament, and a rather small number of New Testament passages dominated...At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts...Now the texts of the Bible form the primary resource for Catholic religious education at all levels. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16)

• U.S,. conference Catholic bishops:

. For the ordinary Catholic in earlier centuries, exposure to Scripture was passive. They heard it read aloud or prayed aloud but did not read it themselves. One simple reason: Centuries ago the average person could not read or afford a book. Popular reading and ownership of books began to flourish only after the invention of the printing press.

Once the printing press was invented, the most commonly printed book was the Bible, but this still did not make Bible-reading a Catholic’s common practice. Up until the mid-twentieth Century, the custom of reading the Bible and interpreting it for oneself was a hallmark of the Protestant churches springing up in Europe after the Reformation...Catholics meanwhile were discouraged from reading Scripture.

Identifying the reading and interpreting of the Bible as “Protestant” even affected the study of Scripture. Until the twentieth Century, it was only Protestants who actively embraced Scripture study. That changed after 1943 when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This not only allowed Catholics to study Scripture, it encouraged them to do so... The Charismatic movement and the rise of prayer groups exposed Catholics to Scripture even more. (Changes in Catholic Attitudes Toward Bible Readings)

Even by 1951 just 22.4% of the gospels and 16.5% of all the NT was read on Sundays and major feast days, and just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days (readings from the Old Testament were not used on Sundays). (Lectionary Statistics)

While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, contrary to some Catholics who claim that they hear most of the entire Bible at Mass, attendees still hear only a small percentage of the whole Bible (at best less than 35% even for daily Mass-going RCs) and most of what is heard is redundant), and thus typical Mass-going Catholics will hardly obtain much of a functional knowledge of Scripture. For the average Catholic does not even go to Mass weekly, which would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible during the reading cycle, let alone faithfully attend Mass daily ( few can, and according to a Catholic source, fewer than 1 percent of Catholics attend daily Mass: www.lifezette.com/faithzette/going-daily-mass-changed-life/)), which would be required in order to hear 27.5% of the entire Bible, excluding Psalms, a few verses of which are read during the liturgy (calculation is of 4179 out of 33001 verses for Sunday Masses, and 9067 out of 33001 for Sunday and weekday masses based on stats from the aforementioned lectionary page.).

I also found a Catholic poster (Todd Easton: Reading the Entire Bible in 3 Years at Mass?) who calculated that if one faithfully one goes to Sunday and daily mass then these RCs only hear 30% of the entire Catholic bible, and faithful Sunday-only Mass attendees only hear 14% of the same. Of course, liberal Protestants most likely hear even less, and like Catholics, but in contrast to evangelicals overall, they testify to engaging in little personal Bible reading.

Of what polemical import is this? Is your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God)? And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Why is this relevant? I never argued otherwise, but that Rome came to hinder personal access and literacy in Scripture, as documented.

You are correct , overall . Were Catholics discouraged from reading the bible , I have found no official document , in 2000 years of church history , which discouraged Catholic from reading the Bible . It was available in universities,libraries..... to read . When the Printing press was invented , by a Catholic , it was the Bible which was printed and became ever more available ( less expensive then the hand written ones , which were dicterated in gold and gems ) , everyone who could read new latin and greek and could memorize whole passages at Church ( like so muslims can memorize the Koran today ) . There has been dissension for 2000 years and people are not zombies , the did think for themselves . However the Apostles warned ;

Scripture warns that some passages of scripture are " hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction " 2 Pet 3:16

Philip came across a eunuch reading the prophet Isaiah and asked him " do you understand what you are reading?" and he said " how can I unless someone guides me ?" Acts 8:30-31

And Peter said " no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit ."

The Catholic Church claims to be the steward of divine revelation . So either the Catholic Church is or is not the steward . Or either Martin Luther was that steward or not ( he did have punished who did not agree with him ) ,or Calinin was the steward or not........ and on it goes . The Catholic Church is not a democracy and it is not every man for himself regarding interpretation . If truth is truth it requires someone to be right . Truth cant be divided . And to declare otherwise . Every church or interpreting individual must declare they have the truth ( especially to counteract the Catholic Churches claim ) to justify their existence . The Catholic Church acknowledges you as fully Christian by the way .

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

And it is also amateur hour Catholic apologetics for the reasons already given. Read them. You have have your unholy mixed multitude unity along with liberal Prots, while I and survey after survey finds those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God can be expected be the most unified essential and core beliefs, and thus they even vote as the most unified religious block, except for the minority in which money trumps morals.

That also applies to conservative Catholics. The Church has always had " weed amongst the wheat "

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That also applies to conservative Catholics. The Church has always had " weed amongst the wheat "

But here members are about half liberals, as shown in voting, vs approx. 80% of evangelical choosing the most conservative candidate (even if sometimes reluctantly).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You are correct , overall . Were Catholics discouraged from reading the bible , I have found no official document , in 2000 years of church history , which discouraged Catholic from reading the Bible ..

And a car thief could not find a police station. Did you dare click on the link i provided? Both local bans as well as universally required special permission, even by the pope, to personally read Scripture - not due to scarcity but fear of it doing more harm than good - discouraged Catholics from reading the Bible.

On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books . According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate.

The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.

Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix. - (Catholic Encyclopedia>Scripture)

Locally,

On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country.

In the 12 century, the Bishop of Metz wrote "to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Scripture)

“In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people. and the Fathers encouraged them to do so...No prohibitions were issued against the popular reading of the Bible...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse, France (1229) and Terragona, Spain, (1234) [local councils], forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. - A Catholic Dictionary: William Edward Addis, ?Thomas Arnold, p. 82; Catholicism's true attitude toward the Bible

Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).

Universally, Trent stated,

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing.

Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop [the inquisition]. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them. - Internet History Sourcebooks, emp. mine

Later,

When English Roman Catholics created their first English biblical translation in exile at Douai and Reims, it was not for ordinary folk to read, but [primarily] for priests to use as a polemical weapon.—the explicit purpose which the 1582 title-page and preface of the Reims New Testament proclaimed. Only the Jansenists of early seventeenth-century France came to have a more positive and generous attitude to promoting Bible-reading among Catholics" (Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History, 2003, p. 406; p. 585.)

The preface to your own Douay–Rheims Bible states,

Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all,... to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

In our own country, notwithstanding the Latin tongue was ever (to use Venerable Bede's words) common to all the provinces of the same for meditation or study of Scriptures, and no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude... - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582

There has been dissension for 2000 years and people are not zombies , the did think for themselves . However the Apostles warned ;
Scripture warns that some passages of scripture are " hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction " 2 Pet 3:16

But the recourse was not to restrict personal reading to that of a select few who would not challenge Rome with her unScriptural teachings, but to do as Apollos did, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)

Philip came across a eunuch reading the prophet Isaiah and asked him " do you understand what you are reading?" and he said " how can I unless someone guides me ?" Acts 8:30-31

And just how does this justify keeping the Bible from people? Rather, we affirm the need for teachers (we have plenty!) but it was because this lost man was searching the Scriptures that he was given help to understand it, and was quickly converted.

Fro indeed, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)

And Peter said " no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit ."

Which use by Catholics as forbidding "private interpretation" examples what they warn against, that of misinterpretation, since this text is not even speaking about the private reading and understanding of Scripture, which, by Truth-loving souls is actually commended, (Acts 17:11) but it is talking about how prophecies were given, in which prophets "prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:10-11)

The Catholic Church claims to be the steward of divine revelation . So either the Catholic Church is or is not the steward...

You are missing the point (and you continually fail to show what response you are interacting with, which is proper in a debate) which is that either being stewards of Scripture means that such as the infallible interpreters of it or they are not. Which is the question asked of you which you need to answer. Do not reply unless you do, for unless the being stewards of Scripture means that such as the infallible interpreters of it then your "we gave you the Bible" assertion is no real polemical weight.

O The Catholic Church is not a democracy and it is not every man for himself regarding interpretation . If truth is truth it requires someone to be right . Truth cant be divided . And to declare otherwise . Every church or interpreting individual must declare they have the truth ( especially to counteract the Catholic Churches claim ) to justify their existence . The Catholic Church acknowledges you as fully Christian by the way

And which argument again fails to recognize and deal with the problem of the need for interpreting the interpreter. "Bible Christians" testify to the most widespread unity in basic beliefs and often work together according yet have disagreements on other issues based upon their interpretation of their supreme authority (Scripture) .

Meanwhile Catholics have a degree of unity in basic beliefs but vary in their interpretation of their supreme authority, church teaching and what is validly consists of, its magisterial level and degree of required assent, and what this all means, to varying degrees.

As one poster wryly stated,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, Against The Grain

All and all you keep repeating Catholic propaganda and are not deal with the substantiated arguments which refute you.

 

[Major1]

Simple to answer: it’s not.
Where in the Bible is the notion that the Bible is the final authority

2 Tim. 3:16-17.........
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:20-21..........
No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Isaiah 46:9-11.............
“Remember what I accomplished in antiquity! Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, ‘My plan will be realized, I will accomplish what I desire,’ who summons an eagle from the east, from a distant land, one who carries out my plan. Yes, I have decreed, yes, I will bring it to pass; I have formulated a plan, yes, I will carry it out”.

 

[Vicomte13]

2 Tim. 3:16-17.........
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 1:20-21..........
No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Isaiah 46:9-11.............
“Remember what I accomplished in antiquity! Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, ‘My plan will be realized, I will accomplish what I desire,’ who summons an eagle from the east, from a distant land, one who carries out my plan. Yes, I have decreed, yes, I will bring it to pass; I have formulated a plan, yes, I will carry it out”.

None of those Scriptures comes even close to saying that the Bible is the final authority. They say that the Bible is an authority - nobody denies that. They do not say - they do not even suggest - that the Bible is the FINAL authority. You've cobbled together the primary tenet of your religion from spit and tissue paper, and it's false.

Since you're not going to repent of it, and I'm not going to ignore the error, it's best that we walk apart in peace. This difference cannot be reconciled.

 

[Arsenios]

My sentiments exactly , but it is we RC would disagree with you regarding mimplication regarding the Roman Church .

Arsenios I hope you had a great Christmas ( I dream of the day our Churches unite )

Thank-you for your kind words - I share your dream...

As an atheist, it was over 3 consecutive Christmases that I came to know God directly... The third as God... Before that, I only knew Him by incapacitatingly stubbing my little toe three times in three days... But I was too thick at that time to figure it out...

PBJ still thinks I am too thick - And who can blame him?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Where in the Bible does the Bible state that the Bible is the Final Authority?

2 Tim. 3:16-17.........
Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.

INSPIRED and USEFUL is hardly FINAL AUTHORITY...

2 Peter 1:20-21..........
No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke FROM God.

This proves that God is the Final Authority, not the Bible... Because the Final Authority, God, CAUSED the Bible to be written by men...

Isaiah 46:9-11.............
“Remember what I accomplished in antiquity! Truly I am God, I have no peer; I am God, and there is none like me, who announces the end from the beginning and reveals beforehand what has not yet occurred, who says, ‘My plan will be realized, I will accomplish what I desire,’ who summons an eagle from the east, from a distant land, one who carries out my plan. Yes, I have decreed, yes, I will bring it to pass; I have formulated a plan, yes, I will carry it out”.

This proves utterly and clearly that God is the Final Authority...
The Bible is not God's peer...

You complain that Latin Catholics make their Pope the Final Authority, and in that cause you now make a BOOK of paper and ink your Final Authority? I mean, are the STONES on which God inscribed the 10 Commandments the Final Authority?

Or is GOD the Final Authority?

I am having a hard time believing that I have to argue for this...

God, by His Incarnation, moved the arena of human salvation from the lifeless and cold stones of the Commandments and the Law into the living and fleshly warm hearts of real and living men and women walking this earth... And now you want to make the Holy Book of God Superior to God? And this when that Book itself tells all who will hear: "The Church is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth - It is the Body of Christ Who is the Head of His Own Body."

I am not scandalized, exactly, but the whole idea is, after all, pretty crackers...

er... Make that TOTALLY crackers!

What makes it plausible is the fact that when one reads the Bible, God works through the Bible in the hearts of those who read and believe it... But the proper response is not to deify the Bible, but to glorify God, who needs no deification...

Mind you...

Lord have Mercy!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

It was for good reason Peter warned,

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

The very fact that the Lord and His disciples referred to "the Scriptures" as authoritative writings of God means that there was a distinctive class of a body of such writings which being from God are therefore Truth. So much for your typical attack on this authoritative body.

Well, back at ya, Bro! You see, we DO agree!

The difference is that I only speak from 2000 years of the writings of the Church and you speak from your private understanding of the Good Book that this Church, the Body of Christ, gave to you... So that the twistings you accuse me of doing find the other three fingers pointing to your self...

But I love your spunk!

This passage does give the Apostle Peter's endorsement of Paul's Writings as Holy Writ... Paul wrote from the Holy Spirit... So also did Peter... Making God the Holy Spirit the Supreme Authority...

Is the king the supreme authority of the land?
Or is it his decrees?

It really is a no-brainer...

Arsenios

 

[Darrel Slugoski]

But here members are about half liberals, as shown in voting, vs approx. 80% of evangelical choosing the most conservative candidate (even if sometimes reluctantly).

. I admire conservative Evangelicals . As I do conservative Catholics . I respect you also < I hope you believe that . We also do work together protesting abortion and other issues .

There are more Christians over all becoming liberalized ( protestants,evangelicals and catholics ), I believe that is statistically true . In the news we are seeing Moody Bible College slipping towards liberalizm as we are seeing protestant,evangelical,and catholics heading that way in Europe and the USA . The Church is growing in Africa and Asia and they are more conservative . There will always be " weeds among the wheat ." as I have said .

I disagree with you in your assertion that evangelicals have a unity in basic beliefs . Issues such as Baptism ( baptism as a sacrament , baptism of the holy spirit , baptism as symbolic, Involve debate over the whole range of Christians involving millions ), Once saved always saved/one can lose their salvation , debate on Predestination ( Calvinism ) amongst churches , communion ( John 6 unless your eat/drink you have no life in you ) , the growing movement of millions of oneness pentecostals ( nature of the Trinity )... These are basic beliefs that are essential to our salvation and understanding of God .

I agree many Catholics may not assent to every teaching of the Catholic church , known as cafeteria catholic . I am sure this the case in each church . Were you will find wolves in sheep's clothing ( to be confronted ) and weeds ( which Christ says to leave alone until the harvest ). Catholics are taught to follow our conscious ( CCC ) but those who dissent ( believe in abortion, contraception ........), from church teaching are answerable on judgement day. The teaching authority ( magisterium ) of the Catholic Church ,( which we can see many Early Church Fathers affirm such as St Augustine as I quoted in past posts) Is a stable and guiding foundation for all Christians . We set the standard , for example , we consider it a sin to miss church services/Mass unless there is a good excuse . It is the individual Catholic whose actions and works (1 Cor 3:5 ) will be tested and were we will be accountable " for every idle word on judgement day " MT 12:3. It is up to every Catholic responsibility to live up to the teachings of the church and strengthen their relationship with Christ .

Obama's former evangelical church ( teaches abortion is acceptable because it is not taught in the Bible ) is teaching falsely . Who should they look to, to scripture alone as their authority or the Catholic Church which has taught it is wrong for 2000 years . If someone is committing adultery and believes they can never lose their salvation ( which a majority of evangelicals/protestants believe) they are believing in a false interpretation . Who do they turn to , their own interpretation and excuse it as 'back sliding' or refer to that Christian as never being a Christian in the first place . The Catholic Church has taught you can lose your salvation, for 2000 years, and there are consequences for disobedience ( hell ) and forgiveness in confession ( 2 Cor 5:17-20 gave us the ministry of reconciliation ) where Christ blew on the apostles ( only other time was when God breathed on man ) John 20:22-23 to receive the Holy Spirit and whose sins you forgive/retain are forgive/retained .

As far of my amature debating skills are not as strong as yours, but you still have the weaker argument . You have never effectively accounted to the different interpretations amongst your own protestant/evangelical/ pentecostal churches . Denying that there are actual differences in interpretation of scripture, even in regards to the basics , I find you purposely make excuses ,deny , or overlook this reality . Then you accuse the Catholics of having differences of opinion to prove there is no unity amongst us . Where in reality the Catholic Church has been teaching a common theology ( developing some doctrine without the Orthodox Church ) and structure ( Bishop of Rome ) for 2000 years . Which is affirmed by the Councils/ Early Church Fathers . Whom have also acknowledged the authority of Rome . After the reformation each person became their own authority regarding interpretation of scripture and division has been the result . Each contradicting the other . Back then protestants would arrest, kill, jail ,confiscate land of those fellow protestants or Catholics who disagreed with their interpretation . This is an historical fact . You point the finger at us but I can point it back .

 

[PeaceByJesus]

. I admire conservative Evangelicals . As I do conservative Catholics . I respect you also < I hope you believe that . We also do work together protesting abortion and other issues .

There are more Christians over all becoming liberalized ( protestants,evangelicals and catholics ), I believe that is statistically true . In the news we are seeing Moody Bible College slipping towards liberalizm as we are seeing protestant,evangelical,and catholics heading that way in Europe and the USA . The Church is growing in Africa and Asia and they are more conservative . There will always be " weeds among the wheat ." as I have said .

Which is no argument for Rome being the one true church since her members have gone liberal more so evangelicals are now drifting, and which drift is due to declension from basic reformation teaching, not because of it. Every man his own pope is not one of them.

I disagree with you in your assertion that evangelicals have a unity in basic beliefs . Issues such as Baptism ( baptism as a sacrament , baptism of the holy spirit , baptism as symbolic, Involve debate over the whole range of Christians involving millions ), Once saved always saved/one can lose their salvation , debate on Predestination ( Calvinism ) amongst churches , communion ( John 6 unless your eat/drink you have no life in you ) , the growing movement of millions of oneness pentecostals ( nature of the Trinity )... These are basic beliefs that are essential to our salvation and understanding of God .

You tried this before and as said, unity in basic beliefs dies not mean all beliefs for them nor for RCs. Hardly any evangelicals believe in baptism as more than symbolic but virtually all believe this is commanded, as with communion and denying the Cath liberalism of John 6:53 (which few RCs really believe),. And basically all believe in the baptism of the holy spirit, but Pentecostals hold it to be a second word of grace, and while there is division on OSAS (once again with Pentecostals denying it) , both believe in salvation by grace thru faith, in Christ's account, not on ones own personal righteousness, as be Catholicism, while details of Predestination is an unresolved debate in your own church, which even the post could not reconcile, but forced a truce.

Thus both have divisions and who ar just ignoring what i said about the validity of arguments for authority based upon unity.

I agree many Catholics may not assent to every teaching of the Catholic church , known as cafeteria catholic . I am sure this the case in each church . Were you will find wolves in sheep's clothing ( to be confronted ) and weeds ( which Christ says to leave alone until the harvest ). Catholic are taught to follow our conscious ( CCC ) but those who dissent ( believe in abortion, contraception ........), from church teaching are answerable on judgement day. The teaching authority ( magisterium ) of the Catholic Church ,( which we can see in many Early Church Fathers affirm such as St Augustine as I quoted in past posts) Is a stable and guiding foundation for all Christians . We set the standard , for example , we consider it a sin to miss church services/Mass unless there is a good excuse . It is the individual Catholic whose actions and works (1 Cor 3:5 ) will be tested and were we will be accountable " for every idle word on judgement day " MT 12:3. It is up to every Catholic responsibility to live up to the teachings of the church and strengthen their relationship with Christ .

Which is basically reiterated bombastic propaganda, for as a church your one basic duty is to follow your pastors as docile sheep, and they show you the meaning of Catholic teaching by what they do, which Scripturally is what determines what you believe, and they count and treat those whom you call "cafeteria catholics" as members in life and in death.

Which also has already been told you yet you just keep reiterating standard RC lines.

Obama's former evangelical church ( teaches abortion is acceptable because it is not taught in the Bible ) is teaching falsely .
Who should they look to, to scripture alone as their authority

You really "jumped the shark" here with your absurdity! "Obama's former evangelical church?!" That foul racist liberal hold of Hell is about as evangelical as anti-evangelical racist Obama is!

Who should they look to, to scripture alone as their authority or The Catholic Church has taught it is wrong for 2000 years

If they actually were lovers of Truth and thus looked to Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God then could see the Catholic Church has not taught anything for 2000 years since it was not the NT church, and her distinctives are not seen the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed. To deny this is to live in a fantasy.

If someone is committing adultery by believes they can never lose their salvation ( which a majority of evangelicals/protestants believe) ( according to their interpretation ) they are believing in a false interpretation . Who do they turn to , their own interpretation and excuse it as 'back sliding' or refer to that Christian as never being a Christian in the first place . The Catholic Church has taught you can lose your salvation, for 2000 years, and there are consequences for disobedience ( hell ) and forgiveness in confession ( 2 Cor 5:17-20 gave us the ministry of reconciliation ) where Christ blew on the apostles ( only other time was when God breathed on man ) John 20:22-23 to receive the Holy Spirit and whose sins you forgive/retain are forgive/retained .

The historical Prot meaning of faith was that of liberals, but perseverance, not impenitent willful sinning, while it is even proabortion, prohomosexual public Catholics who are giving hope of salvation because they die as Catholics. They are your brethren, not mine, and you must own them since your church manifestly does. To deny this is to live in a fantasy.

As far of my amature debating skills are not as strong as yours, but you still have the weaker argument . You have never effectively accounted to the different interpretations amongst your own protestant/evangelical/ pentecostal churches . Denying that there are actual differences in interpretation of scripture, even in regards to the basics , I find you purposely make excuses ,deny , or overlook this reality . Then you accuse the Catholics of having differences of opinion to prove there is no unity amongst us . Where in reality the Catholic Church has been teaching a common theology ( developing some doctrine without the Orthodox Church ) and structure ( Bishop of Rome ) for 2000 years . Which is affirmed by the Councils/and Early Church Fathers

What?! You evidence you have not read or comprehended all of what i said, and in any case just go on spouting whitewashed propaganda.

I am done with you wasting my time. "Obama's former evangelical church" included!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well, back at ya, Bro! You see, we DO agree!

The difference is that I only speak from 2000 years of the writings of the Church and you speak from your private understanding of the Good Book that this Church, the Body of Christ, gave to you... So that the twistings you accuse me of doing find the other three fingers pointing to your self...
But I love your spunk!
This passage does give the Apostle Peter's endorsement of Paul's Writings as Holy Writ...

No, you speak from your churches understanding of the Good Book that the NT Church, the Body of Christ, wrote, and which Catholic distinctive stand in contrast to. And which church began contrary to the Catholic model for veracity, in which the stewards of Scripture are the faithful interpreters of it, and instead common souls correctly discerned who and what of God, which to the historical magisterium was nothing more than private understanding of the Holy Writ that they were the stewards of, with the sect of the Nazarene following a bunch of Scripture-quoting itinerant preachers who manifested the power of God.

Paul wrote from the Holy Spirit... So also did Peter... Making God the Holy Spirit the Supreme Authority...
Is the king the supreme authority of the land?
Or is it his decrees?
It really is a no-brainer...
Arsenios

Another logical fallacy since these are two different categories. One is a Being and the other is instrumental expression/revelation. God is greater than all as the Being and source of all, but who is unknown apart from expressive revelation of Himself and His will, instrumentally motivating and provided what is needed for faith and to know God and serve Him according to His will. And which makes His word the supreme authority as revelation of this.

You can argue that God can reveal Himself by other means, and is the one who enables one to understand and believe His word, both of which are True, yet by nature and example the written word is the supreme standard as the reliable wholly inspired and substantive word of God, to which subjective claims of revelation are subject to.

But i have said all this before, and to have you resort to your denial of what refutes you, which all may see, so why should i spend more time with you? I need to move on to other posters.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

None of those Scriptures comes even close to saying that the Bible is the final authority. They say that the Bible is an authority - nobody denies that. They do not say - they do not even suggest - that the Bible is the FINAL authority. You've cobbled together the primary tenet of your religion from spit and tissue paper, and it's false.

Since you're not going to repent of it, and I'm not going to ignore the error, it's best that we walk apart in peace. This difference cannot be reconciled.

While you must obey your conscience, we are speaking about an infallible standard and it is incontrovertible as abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired substantive and assured Word of God.

What is your wholly Divinely inspired infallible supreme standard?

 

[Arsenios]

No, you speak from your Churche's understanding of the Good Book that the NT Church, the Body of Christ, wrote,

My Church IS the New Testament Church as the original Apostles established Her... The Eastern Orthodox Faith is the Faith Communion that gave you the New Testament... Mine happens to be the Church in Antioch, where the followers of Christ were first called Christians...

Do you know what they were called prior to Antioch being discipled by Paul?
I do not think it is mentioned in the Bible,
so you may want to reject it out of hand,
but the Followers of Christ prior to Antioch were called:
"The Followers of the Way..."

That Church, in which the Apostle Peter also served in his departure from persecutions by the Jews, later became one of the 5 major Apostolic Sees... Our Bible, you see, is the Greek Witness, of which you have but a VERSION...

The Woman at the Well had a name...
Do you know her name?
It was not written in the Bible, but it exists nonetheless...
Her name was Photini...
Do you know the name of the little child?
The one Christ took upon his knee?
"Permit the Children to come unto me..."
He became an Episkopos...
And was martyred in Rome...
In the circus, eaten by lions...
He wrote to the Churches enroute...
His name was Ignatius of Antioch...

What I am trying to slip into your understanding is this:

Christ did not FAIL to establish the Holy People of God on earth...

The Bible is a WITNESS of the Faith of that Holy People of God...
They are as a WHOLE [Kata Holon, Catholic] the Body of Christ...

Christ did not FAIL, you see, as you so insist that He did fail...
That He failed for 1500 years until the German Printing Presses came along...
And then lucky for us all, Luther also came along with a printed Bible...
And every man now can read for himself and determine for himself...
His very own private understanding of what the Bible says...

YOU, you see, claim I am denigrating and attacking the Bible...
Constantly do you shove that accusationin my face...
And you are right, if only by my sins in this life...
But the counter to this accusation of yours is more than triple...
For you are accusing God of failing to establish His Body upon the earth...
And that only now has the ingenuity of man...
The ingenuity inventing the printing presses...
Come to the rescue of God's failed attempt...

God did not fail...

And for YOU, my Brother, may I please be permitted to insist...
LOOK at the success of God for the first thousand years...
And THEN, looking at that success and explaining HOW it succeeded...
Show how Christianity today is superior in any way...
To that in the first, third and 9th centuries...

God did not fail until the printing presses saved His efforts...

Many of our greatest and miracle working Saints...
Could neither read noor write...
But they KNEW God...
Which is what Christianity is all about, or it is nothing...

Nothing but an anthropologist's "Belief System"
On a par with any other "belief system"...

Arsenios