• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Please, I'd really like to know the answer to this

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by PublicNewSense, Oct 29, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    Mackerel-snappers? Sounds like Bob Jones or something. That guy is crazy. Pretty humorous Wols. :lol:

    A little on the hard side, but if you're referring to fundies I agree with ya!
  2. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    Given the concensus in here to continue the discussion, I 'll try to get a reply in by the end of tonight, if not tomorrow. By the way, I like sarcasm...makes a discussion even more interesting, although some don't know the difference between it and ad-hominum attacks. I'll try not to keep you waiting too long. :)

  3. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    Wolseley, in your reply feel free to cut any parts out and shorten it this thread. I promise I won't think you're trying to dodge any of my arguments. In fact, I might be grateful if you do.

    "First of all, you repeatedly refer to clergy being allowed the option to marry as "the law of God", and you haven't yet proven to me, by means of Scripture or otherwise, that this is a "law". Scripture indicates that is allowed, certainly, but the particular preference of the individual is a long ways from being a "law"."

    A law of God can be defined as either a commandment, precept, or rule which governs the moral or doctrinal compass of God's people. Paul had permission from God to lay down such a prescriptive rule (and, as we'll see, an essential one too) for the entire church:

    "Now concerning the things about which ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor. 7:1-2)

    Now when the apostle himself says to let every man and woman have their own spouse, it is clear that celibacy is not to be imposed upon anyone in the entire church. And on the same token, where he says that this rule was "not by commandment," he is also making it clear that marriage is not to be imposed upon anyone either. Yet, the Catholic church has made their own rule, saying, "if you wish to become a priest, you must vow to celibacy," which basically makes the Word of God in 1 Cor. 7:1-2 void and of no effect for your priests. Can you think of anyone in the Scriptures that made a similiar mistake?

    "Celibacy is a discipline, which exists from the time of Paul, as I previously mentioned. It was
    considered mandatory in various early dioceses throughout the first millennium of Christian
    history, and was imposed Church-wide at the 2nd Lateran Council in 1139. The reasons for
    this are several."

    Just for the record, I am not arguing against celibacy but rather I am arguing against the imposition of it by any church, particularly as a prerequisite to becoming a minister. And I base my argument from the apostolic rule which Paul laid down above in 1 Corinthians. Hence, I cannot conceive how you actually think your church leadership has any authority to override what is truly apostolic and install their own set of rules. How do you figure your church can claim to be the holy "apostolic" church of God when it doesn't abide by the apostle's inspired words?.

    "For one, the Church recognized the teaching of Paul that a man who is unmarried can attend full-time to the responsibilities of the Church...."

    No problem here, but does not a man have a right to change his mind if so chooses later on? Did not the apostle Paul himself say that he had the right to "lead about a wife"?

    "For another, the Church has always insisted that clergy should be chosen by the Church; (this is what the lay investiture battles, where some king or duke felt he had the right to "appoint" priests he was happy with, as opposed to whom the Church felt was suitable for the job, were all about); in the Middle Ages, the usual rule for a job being passed along was primogeniture, meaning that the occupation of a father went to his oldest son when he died. There were cases of this happening with married priests; the father would die, and his son would simply take his place. It often proved, however, that the kid was not quite suitable for the job, either by deficiencies in morality or intelligence, and the Church, again, wanted men in Holy Orders who were fit for the job, not just somebody who inherited the position. Imposing mandatory celibacy was a way to clear up this problem."

    Don't you think it would have been more scriptural to dispel of the myth that a son inherits his father ministry, and then take the time to train qualified men for the job, rather than impose celibacy? It seems to me that your church went about to correct a bad situation all the wrong way.

    "And finally, by 1139, the West had been in a Crusade or two, and was hoping to send Christian missionaries to convert the Muslims. This was a vain hope, of course, but that's besides the point. With celibate clergy, the Church could simply send missionaries wheresoever she chose, without having to worry about dependents being unsupported for months or years while the missionaries were away. This is sort of an extension of my first point above."

    Again, this seems to me like the same kind of lack of wisdom as found above. If the mission field is too dangerous for the families of married missionaries, then instead of imposing celibacy why not just send unmarried missionaries? With all the monks and monasteries you Catholics supposedly had back then, I would think you would have had more than enough men to accomplish the goal.

    "Here is the issue of authority. You are taking this verse to mean "the assembly"----the
    whole Christian body of believers, who should come together and make decisions about issues in the Church.

    Well, Wolseley, the verse did say the "church" or assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth. Are you telling me that the verse is not saying that? Are you saying that Paul should have meant to say "the magisterium"? Either the Christian assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth or some other body is. And if it be the Christian assembly, such as those established in the New Testament, then it certainly could not be the body of the magisterium, now could it?

    "But it should be borne in mind that the Christian Church is not, and never was, a democracy. Take a look at the Book of Acts. Who has the authority when issues came up? Hint: it wasn't the whole assembly of believers. In Acts 6:2, it was the twelve Apostles. At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:6, it was the Apostles and the priests who decided what to do, not the entire assembly. And even in cases where the assembly is mentioned as being involved, such as Acts 15:22, it is still the Apostles and leaders in the Church who make the decisions, and the assembly merely gives its blessing."

    I have to take this and the next paragraph separately, since you are essentially dealing with a different subject altogether, i.e. how the assembly should interact with its leadership.

    Now you say the church is not a democracy but a heirarchy, yet Jesus taught his disciples that his leaders were not to govern his church like the Gentiles (such as the Romans, who were highly heirarchial, see Matt. 20:25-2:cool: . That means the ministers of the church are not to be dictators, or impose their own rules, or running the church like a one-man show (like Diotrephes), but feeding and guiding the flock with the Word and their godly wisdom. What you read in Acts is precisely what I just described. For instance, when James spoke in Acts 15, he clearly stated that what he spoke was his judgment based on what the Scripture said. The other aposltes and elders, along with the congregation, was pleased with James' application of Scripture, and thus they all agreed to send letters to the Gentile churches. So what you see here is not the leadership making the decision for the church, and the church just blindly going along with it, but rather you see the leadership and the assembly agreeing together (based on James' counsel) to remedy a problem that had originated from their own church. Furthermore, you have other instances in the Acts where we indeed find the congregation acting more like a democracy than anything else, such as in the choosing of another apostle (1:15-26), choosing deacons (6:2-6), the baptizing of Gentile believers (10:47), contending with Peter (11:1:cool: , giving relief to the saints (11:29), commending further missionary work (15:40), et al.

    "The Catholic Church has always seen itself, through the teaching authority which it got from the Apostles (the Magestrium), as the final arbiter of matters of faith or doctrine. This does not mean the entire body of believers, but the leaders of the Church---the Pope and the bishops. The origin for this belief comes from Christ Himself, and parts of it can be found in Scripture. In Matthew 28:18-20 and John 20:21, power is delegated to the Apostles---not to the assembly. In Ephesians 4:11, the structure of the Church is shown to be hierarchical, with those bearing the titles of evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc. on one side, and the body (or assembly) on the other. 1 Timothy 3:1 and 5:17 as well as Titus 1:5 indicate regulations for those in leadership positions; meaning that leadership of the Church is not the province of the entire assembly."

    Yes, I understand how the Catholic church views itself. But bear with me as I point out problems that I see with it. In John 20:21, Christ was not only empowering the apostles but his entire church, i.e. the disciples (20:19...by the way, the apostle Thomas was not even present). This is evidenced in the Acts, where both apostles and disciples carried out Christ's mandate to preach the Word and baptize souls, and incorporate them in to the church so that they could be taught. In Matthew 28, where the 11 are said to have gathered in Galilee, it is made clear by the Gospel of Mark & Luke thatthe other disciples were to be present as well (Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:9-11). In Ephesians 4, what we simply have is Paul describing the purpose of such offices within the church, which is to "perfect" or mature the saints so that they could do the "work" of the church ministry so that the church body could be built up. So your evidence for this supposed "authority" of the magisterium is really, in our view, an evidence for the authority of every Christian assembly or church.

    "There are manifold examples of this hierarchical structure and its subsequent authority throughout the early literature of the Church. Ignatius (who died in 110 AD) wrote letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, and Trallians, and in every one strictly ordered them to be in complete obedience to their bishops. Clement, bishop of Rome, said the same thing in 80 AD. The Bishop of Rome being in charge, and the bishops of other churches being in leadership positions, are mentioned by Hegesippus in 180 AD, Irenaeus in 180 AD, Tertullian in 200 AD, Clement of Alexandria in 190 AD, Origen in 226 AD, Cyprian of Carthage in 251, and Firmilian of Caesarea in 255, all of which pre-date the advent of Emperor Constantine, who, according to a popular Protestant mythology, "took over" the Church and introduced all sorts of pagan practices."

    All of these mens' writings are post-apostolic (except maybe not Clement, who was not acting as a pope but was simply responding to the Corinthian's request for advice). Consequently, your duty is to discern whether or not what they wrote is truly reflective of the apostles' doctrine. If they are not, you must reject them. I, after much study, have found that they aren't reflective of the apostles' doctrine. Even Jerome (in his 146th epistle) demonstrated that the office of bishop and presbyter were originally one and the same in the apostolic era, but was changed some point later as a measure taken by some churches in hopes to prevent schism. That makes the heirarchial structure of catholicism an invention and novelty of the second century. Ignatius was a disciple of one of the apostles, and was the first in writing to state any divisions between bishop and presbyter. But you cannot conclude just from this alone that he must have actually perpetuated the apostles' doctrine any more than Philetus and Hymenaeus, two of Paul's disciples gone bad. In order to judge whether or not his doctrine was apostolic, you have to first look to the apostles' doctrine, and not simply to those who claimed to have succeeded them.

    "So the Catholic Church sees itself, through the Magesterium of Popes, bishops, and councils, as the final word on faith and doctrine---not the Bible, not Sacred Tradition, and not the assembly. The Church cannot and does not change anything in Scripture or Tradition, but it does consider itself the proper interpreter of Scripture and Tradition."

    The Scripture does not necessarily have to be changed in order for people to be subverted from the truth. Indeed, all is needed is a few commandments of men in order for the Word of God to have no effect on the people. I think Christ proved that quite sufficiently.

    "Indeed, it was the Magesterium of the Catholic Church which, in a series of councils, decided what was going to be considered Holy Scripture. They included the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of John, for example, but they left out the Acts of Pilate and the Gospel of Philip. You are, of course, not required to agree.

    This needs a bit of clarification. What you are referring to, I believe, is the council of Carthage, which was only a local council of African churches, and as such did not have the authority to determine the canon for the rest of the Christian world. Their "canon" of Scripture was merely that...their own. Before Carthage, Alexandria had determined theirs, as did Cyril and his churches in Palestine, Epiphanius also, among others, with some including the deuterocanonicals and some not. It seems to me, then, that Catholics just couldn't agree with each other on the canon, and Carthage only added to the mix. Even by the time the Vulgate was put together, the deuterocanonicals were still held suspect by many. Jerome didn't consider them inspired, although under pressure he included them as an addendum to his version. It wasn't until many centuries after Carthage that the present Catholic canon eventually came to hold the most sway.

    Furthermore, the Catholics weren't the only ones who came together to determine which books were inspired and which were not. Tertullian, as a Montanists in the early 3rd century, spoke of councils which had already determined what books were not canonical, such as the "Shepherd." Indeed, Epiphanius in the 4th century (previous to Carthage), wrote how the Montanists "accept the whole of the old Scriptures; they read and confess the New Testament and proclaim the resurrection of the dead just as all true Christians do." (Panarion 48:1) So I guess you can say that I don't accept as accurate the idea that the Catholic church was responsible for giving the world the Bible. I do, however, accept the idea that they eventually, after many, many centuries, finally determined which Scriptures they do consider inspired among themselves, as others have done.

    "Dismissing the idea above of the assembly having the authority, which we have already disposed of, the Church has the right as the final arbiter of faith and doctrine, to impose disciplines on the Church or segments of it, and to lift them as well. Celibacy is a discipline, which means the Church imposed it, and the Church can lift it, if she so desires. You might be interested to know that Catholic priests in most, if not all, of the Eastern rites, can indeed marry. This is a reflection of the absence of primogeniture in the ancient East, while in the West, it was prevalent. Ergo, celibacy is more common to the Roman, or Western, rite of the Catholic Church than it is to the various Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic deacons are also allowed to take orders while married, and ordained ministers who are converts to Catholicism can also become Catholic priests while married. So, married clergy does exist, it is simply not the norm.

    Well, given what I've written thus far, I think it's safe to say that one would have to dismiss the idea of the assembly having the authority in order to accept that celibacy could be imposed upon ministers contrary to God permitting them to marry. It's the only way to get around the apostolic rule.

    "The Church hasn't laid down a law in imposing celibacy, either.

    But it is ecclesiastical law. That's why I provided the quotes from your own official documents. If imposing celibacy upon ministers is not an ecclesiastical law, then you should be able to tell me that among the Roman rite a man is not required to vow celibacy before entering the priesthood. If he is required to choose celibacy, then he really has no choice if he wishes to be a minister, correct?

    "Celibacy is not as easy discipline, and it is totally misunderstood by most modern people, who simply cannot for the life of them figure out why anybody would want to live their entire life without having access to "the wild thang" from time to time. It is especially misunderstood by most non-Catholic Americans, who do not understand the history of the Church or the disciplines within it, and who usually take no authority except Scripture, which they elevate above all. The Catholic Church does not operate under the said strictures---which opens it up to misapplications of 1st-century injunctions against ancient heretical groups being applied to Christians of later centuries, under completely different situations."

    I actually understand celibacy quite well. In fact, I was a celibate pastor myself for quite some time before I married. But I also understand that celibacy does not require a vow to remain celibate indefinitely. A man is not required of God to vow celibacy, nor is he required to remain celibate once he has chosen not to marry. He may in fact marry later on. Even Paul, in the context of the Scripture of which we are debating, said that he was not trying to cast a snare upon the Corinthians, i.e. trying to trap them into celibacy. In fact, he even states that if the man goes on to marry after being celibate because he cannot contain himsel, he does not sin.

    "I realize I have probably not changed your mind one whit on this subject, Schrack."

    And I realize I probably won't change your mind, but I like the fact that we're able to discuss and argue it a little without getting hostile.

    "You will still come back and say, "But the Bible says....." And that's fine, if that's what your church is based entirely upon."

    Yes, it is based on what the Bible says, but that is only because we know that the apostles' doctrine is the only safe ground. A church can't go wrong following the teachings of the apostles, but it can very wrong if it should follow the teachings of men.

    "The Catholic Church is not. In the Catholic Church, the Church is the interpreter of both the Bible and the discipline of celibacy.

    We believe the "church" is the interpreter of Scriptures too, but where we differ is we believe the "church" to be the entire assembly and not just the leadership. In fact, most biblical writers, like Peter, wrote their epistles to the actual members of such churches, leaving me to believe that he had every bit of confidence in them to be able to apprehend what he was writing under inspiration. Can you imagine telling Philemon that he would not be able to interpret the letter Paul wrote him without it first being interpreted by your magisterium?

    "We do not see the imposition of a discipline as a contradiction of Scripture; but we also do not see the Scriptural passages in question as absolute "laws", either. I do realize that your major kick in this whole thing isn't with celibacy, but with authority in the Church. We say the Magesterium, which you see as mere men setting themselves up as being superior to God. You say the full body of believers, which we see as a sure bet to another 20,000 different denominations, because if everybody has the say about what's right and proper, then everybody is going to have their own church. That's okay, I guess, but the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't operate that way. I guess the bottom line is if celibacy ain't your thing, then you hadn't oughtta be doing it. And if you disagree with the way the Catholic Church runs itself, then you shouldn't be a Catholic; you should be a Baptist, or Methodist, or Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Assembly of God, or any one of whatever you like.

    Well you can't pretend, Wolseley, that Catholicism itself is not a fractured entity either. There are numerous Catholic rites throughout the world, and not all of them are in line with the pope in Rome, nor have been since early times, simply because they never did recognize the pope's claim as universal bishop. So the way I see it, Roman Catholicism can be regared as simply one among those 20,000 different denominations that you mentioned. Is my beef with the claimed authority of the Catholic church? In part, yes. But from what you wrote I suspect that is also your beef with my church.

  4. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    Catholic priests do not take a vow of celibacy, unless they are entering a religious order, such as the Society of Jesus.

    And there are far more types of ministry in the Church than simply the priesthood. To focus on that one aspect is myopia.

  5. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A


    I've had to do a lot of praying!! ;)

    Thanks for the complement, I wasn't sure I could be impartial but this has been a humbling experience. Thanks be to God for helping me not be as reactionary as I was in the past.

    This passage made me really think yesterday: Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us for we have had more than enough of contempt. Psalm 123:3

    We can't have contempt for one another and expect God to have mercy for us. Even if we disagree on our beliefs, we must show mercy and compassion to each other. Contempt is a sure mark of the presence of Satan. And Wols has been a good example for me! :D

    Peace be with you all!
  6. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    United States
    "Now concerning the things about which ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor. 7:1-2)
    Context, Schrack. Why did Paul say that every man should have his own wife? "To avoid fornication". In verse 9 he says, "If they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry". The point being that if you're going to be a priest, it is understood that you have a handle on your sexual desires.
    Again, Scripture for us is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals. The Church is. We also interpret Scripture and Scared Tradition in light of each other, while you interpret Scripture in light of itself, thus making for vastly different interpretations of the same verses, taking into consideration the bodies of context you're dealing with.
    We believe Sacred Tradition to also be the inspired Word of God, and truly Apostolic as well; Paul's words in 1 Cor. have to be interpreted with the larger context of the rest of Tradition and Scripture. Again, Scripture is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals.
    Depends on the vow he took in the first place. Celibacy? No, he doesn't have the right to change his mind. Marriage to a woman? No, he doesn't that right to change his mind (i.e., divorce and re-marriage). No vow to either? Yes, he can change his mind.
    Yes, he did. :) Which simply means that at that time, the Church had not imposed the discipline of celibacy Church-wide. Later, they did.
    Again, the Catholic Church does not measure everything by the yardstick of Scripture, so whether the practice was "scriptural" or not is irrelevant. You also must bear in mind the extremely unsettled conditions then prevalent in Europe---feudal lords meddling in Church business, isolation of various pockets of the population, distance between points and hazards of travel, and abuses by some members of the clergy without approbation from Rome. The manner chosen by Rome was, at the time, seen to be the best solution. Your opinion, or mine, of these measures, at this point are also largely irrelevant.
    Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the reason the monks were unmarried was because they took a vow of celibacy, ;) let's take into consideration three things:
    1. Monks were not under the authority of the local bishops who might send them on missionary journeys. Monks were subject only to the superior of the community (the abbot or the prior), and to the Holy Father.
    2. Monks also took a vow of "stability", meaning they entered their monastery and they did not leave it.
    3. If you are going to convert people to Catholicism, you should at least be able to furnish them with a priest to celebrate Mass. Only a priest can consecrate the elements of bread and wine at Mass---brothers cannot. Not all monks were priests; some of them were, but the vast majority of them were vowed religious brothers. They belonged to the community, certainly, but they were not priests and could not celebrate Mass. Sending them out to convert people to a religion which they couldn't provide services for was defeating the purpose before you even got started.

    In the 12th century, a new type of order got started, that of the friar. Friars were also vowed religious brothers, but they did not take vows of stability and could travel where they wished, with the permission of the superior. Many of these orders---the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits especially---had as one of their main activities the missionary field. In addition, some order, like the Jesuits, were made up primarily of priests, and not just brothers.
    Again, Scripture for us is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals. The Church is. We also interpret Scripture and Scared Tradition in light of each other, while you interpret Scripture in light of itself, thus making for vastly different interpretations of the same verses, taking into consideration the bodies of context you're dealing with.
    Jesus chose special men to be His Apostles (Jn 15:16). To those men He gave His mission (Jn 20:21). He appointed one of them to be the head of the rest (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17). He gave these men all power (Mt 28:18ff). They could forgive sins (Jn 20:23). They could speak with Christ's voice (Lk 10:16). They could both discipline and legislate others (Mat 18:17ff). The Church was built upon them (Eph 2:20). And when they died, their office passed on to their replacements (Acts 1:20-26). He did not give this power to everybody (Eph 4:11). Ergo, as I said: you have the clergy, and then you have the laity.
    In the Gospels, the 12 disciples were the Apostles. The disciples didn't become Apostles ("those who are sent") until after Christ's Ascention.
    Does not this indicate that you have set yourself up as the final judge of what is truly Apostolic doctrine? What of those who disagree with your conclusions?
    And what if those who succeeded the Apostles were basing their teachings on the doctrines they learned from the Apostles? This is what Sacred Tradition consists of: the oral teachings of the Apostles. Remember, the Christian Scriptures took 100 years to be written, and a further 300 to be defined.
    Actually, no; I am speaking of the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, which was followed by the Councils of Carthage---3 Carthage in 397, and 4 Carthage in 418. In all cases, these councils merely followed the listing put forth by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, containing the same listing found in Catholic Bibles today.
    You're correct, which was the major reason the Pope put together the listing of books he did in 382.
    Here, you're wrong. The exact listing of the books set down by Hippo in 393 was repeated by 3 Carthage in 397; 4 Carthage in 418; the Council of Florence in 1441, and finally by the Council of Trent in 1546. In all cases, the councils simply repeated the list originally drawn up by Damasus in 382.
    Tertullian was a Christian from 197 to 212, and accepted the rulings of the Catholic Faith; after a period of wavering, he succumbed to the Montanist heresy in 213, and died as a heretic around 240. It is unsurprising that he would accept the rulings of heretical councils which might include or discount non-canonical books, but the fact that he deviated from Christianity does not nullify the veracity of the canon approbated by the Church.
    Notice, however, how Epiphanius draws a distinction between the Montanists and "true Christians". He also does not enumerate the books he considers "the whole of the old Scriptures", any more than he names what he considers the New Testament. And in any event, Epiphanius is not the deciding factor in the canon of scripture; the Popes and various Catholic councils are.

    Incidentally, if you're quoting Epiphanius as a trustworthy source, the same document (the Panarion) has this to say: "It is needful also to make use of Tradition; for not everything can be gotten from Sacred Scripture. The holy Apostles handed down some things in the Scriptures, other things in Tradition." (61:6). You might want to bear this in mind the next time you're defending sola scriptura ;)
    Nobody says you have to agree with me, or with the Catholic Church.
    Again, nobody holds a gun to the head of anyone. Nobody is forced to become a priest. If you choose to become a priest, you also freely choose celibacy. If you don't want to be celibate, there are dozens of other occupations within the Church to choose from which do not require celibacy, even liturgical positions such as deacon.
    If he wants to be a priest, he does.
    Here, again, we get into matters of interpretation within contexts.
    Here we agree---insofar as it is remembered that we consider Sacred Tradition to also be the teachings of the Apostles, not the mere teachings of men. :)
    Did he? Then how do you account for 2 Peter 1:20 and 3:16?
    Philemon, admittedly, is relatively easy to comprehend. But how about John 6:35-66.....how would you interpret that? My guess is that there are as many different interpretations as there are denominations. Or how about Daniel and Revelation? Leave the interpretation of those to the assembly, and you end up with the eschatological mess we are all familiar with; Pre-millennial, post-millennial, mid-millennial, amillennial, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, immanence, symbolism, literalism----why, the possibilities are endless! ;)
    You're free to see it that way if you like. We see it a bit differently; we see the Catholic Church, and other Christians. The various rites within the Catholic Church simply mean a difference in liturgical languages (if you're Roman Catholic, Latin; if you're Syrian Catholic, Arabic, etc.) but they are all in union with Rome, and they all recognize the primacy of the Pope. If they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope, then they are either Orthodox (Greek, Russian, what have you), or in direct schism (Polish National Catholic Church, Old Catholic Church, Society of St. Pius X, etc.), and by that very fact, not part of the Catholic Church.
    I don't really have any beefs with other churches, per se. I'm perfectly content to let them run their own affairs and conduct themselves as they like. My only beef is when another church tries to tell mine that we are wrong, for reasons X, Y, or Z. :)

    Long post, Schreck. Took me a while to get through this reply. :) BTW, did you know that "schreck" is the German word for "fear"?

  7. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    Two questions Wols..


    "You might want to bear this in mind the next time you're defending sola scriptura"

    SO? The catholic church doesn't "agree" with all the teachings of some of the church fathers such as tert, Ireanus, or St augstine.

    Second is just a question, do you think the apostiles had more "access" to the Holy Spirit then other people? What makes them "speicaler" then you or me?
  8. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    United States
    The point I was making was that Schreck was quoting from Epiphanius of Salamis to prove a point about the canon of Scripture, and implying by said means that the canon was not the sole province of the Catholic Church. I was merely replying with another quote from the same document by the same author pointing out the need for Tradition as well as Scripture---a position that no Baptist worth his salt would even entertain in his more delirious moments---thus underscoring the irony of Schreck's use of this particular author. It had nothing to do with the Church rendering decisions on which writings stack up against Apostolic Tradition and which do not.
    Jesus chose special men to be His Apostles (Jn 15:16). To those men He gave His mission (Jn 20:21). He appointed one of them to be the head of the rest (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17). He gave these men all power (Mt 28:18ff). They could forgive sins (Jn 20:23). They could speak with Christ's voice (Lk 10:16). They could both discipline and legislate others (Mat 18:17ff). The Church was built upon them (Eph 2:20). And when they died, their office passed on to their replacements (Acts 1:20-26). He did not give this power to everybody (Eph 4:11).

  9. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    "It had nothing to do with the Church rendering decisions on which writings stack up against Apostolic Tradition and which do not. "


    "Jesus chose special men to be His Apostles (Jn 15:16). "

    This verse deals with ALL believers..not just the 12, if it does then all that scripture is useless to us. It is very clear that in context this verse talks about ALL believers.

    "He appointed one of them to be the head of the rest (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17"

    These verses give no indication that Peter was the "head" apposle..wow..I expected a little more from you on this subject...

    "He did not give this power to everybody (Eph 4:11)."

    This verse in no way indicated this was given to only them...On the contray it speaks of working togehter using our differnt "talents" to strenghten each other...as it says verse 16..wow..is this the biblical back you use? Stick to the tradition to back it ;)
  10. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    United States
    Which is precisely what I intend to do, Louis. :) As I have repeatedly said, Catholics interpret Scripture in light of Tradition, and vice-versa. Protestants interpret Scripture in light of itself. Which is why we can take the very same verses and end up with two completely different, diametrically opposed, interpretations.

    If you don't agree with the Catholic interpretation, then stick with sola scriptura.

  11. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    "If you don't agree with the Catholic interpretation, then stick with sola scriptura."

    Will do, in my mind ya can't get any better then the original..hey..just in case, (upon rereading my last post) please don't think I was trying to be mean, it seemed to sound a little...my appologies if it did...
  12. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    United States
    Below are some Scripture listings from a Catholic apologetics site (www.scripturecatholic.com/) that apply to some of the subjects we've been discussing.

    While I don't think some of the quotes exactly apply, there are some pertinent points in the listings, so I thought I would post them, for whatever it's worth.

    Bear in mind, again, that these are interpreted from the Catholic viewpoint, and again, that you are not required to agree with them if you are not Catholic.

    I apologize for the length. :)
    Peter being the head of the Apostles:

    Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are mentioned 130 times. Peter is always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (exceptions to the rule).

    Mt 10:2; Mk 1:36; 3:16; Lk 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

    Matt. 14:28-29 - Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail.

    Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

    Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation.

    Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

    Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which mandate leadership over the Church and dynastic succession.

    Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

    Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

    Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness.

    Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

    Mark 10:28 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

    Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

    Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. He will be the head of the apostles.

    Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

    Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. The Pope is the "fisher of men."

    Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

    Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

    Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

    Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

    Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples.

    Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

    Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

    Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. Luke 24:33.

    John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

    John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

    John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

    John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net doesn't break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

    John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

    John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these (the other apostles)." Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

    John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep = all people, even the apostles.

    Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

    Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates selection of successor to Judas. If the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

    Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

    Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

    Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

    Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

    Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

    Acts 5:3 - Peter declares first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

    Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

    Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

    Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

    Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among apostles and works healing of Aeneas.

    Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

    Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter has a divine vision.

    Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

    Acts 12:5 - implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

    Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

    Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves first doctrinal issue on circumcision at Church's first council at Jerusalem. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

    Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

    Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks showing Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

    Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

    1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.

    Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

    1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

    1 Peter 5:13 - Peter writes from Rome (Babylon was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution).

    2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

    2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

    Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

    Office of ministry being handed to the Apostles, not to the entire assembly:

    I. Ordained Leaders Share in Jesus' Ministry and Authority
    Matt. 10:1,40 - he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.

    Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven.

    Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).

    Luke 10:16 - he who hears you, hears Me. The Son's authority is transferred to the apostles. God exalts His children.

    Luke 22:29 - Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. The gift is transferred.

    John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.

    John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. He will transfer this authority to other men.

    John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Similarly, the apostles will do nothing on their own authority.

    John 12:49 - Father's authority is transferred to the Son. The Son does not speak on his own. This is a transfer of divine authority.

    John 13:20 - he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me. He who receives the apostles, receives Christ Himself.

    John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. The gift is from the Father to Jesus to the apostles.

    John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. Authority is not lessened or mitigated.

    John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. The apostles have divinely appointed authority.

    Acts 20:28 - apostles are shepherds and guardians / 1 Peter 2:25 - Jesus is the Shepherd and Guardian.

    Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles - "foundation" proves it does not die with apostles, but carries on through succession.

    Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - household, Bride of the Lamb, the new Jerusalem = Church whose foundation is the apostles.

    II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
    Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does is implement succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority.

    Acts 1:20 - successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (bishopric) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin.

    Acts 1:22 - literally, "one must be ordained" to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required.

    Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). Authority transfers beyond the twelve.

    Acts 8:17; 19:6 - Luke clearly states that the Holy Spirit is transferred beyond original apostles by the laying on of hands.

    Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop.

    Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This must come from a Catholic bishop.

    Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

    Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

    2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

    Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office.

    1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. An office has successors.

    1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

    1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality.

    2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

    2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace lineage to a Catholic bishop.

    2 Tim. 2:2 - transferring of authority to successors (Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of apostles.

    Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ's work.

    1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (bishops and successors to apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error.

    III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
    Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles' special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

    Acts 15:6; 16:4 - teaching authority is granted to apostles and successors. Teaching authority must be traced to original apostles.

    1 Cor. 5:3-5; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 - shows the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize ("deliver to satan").

    2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God.

    2 Cor. 5:20 - we are "ambassadors" for Christ. This means an actual participation in Christ's mission; it is not a passive representation.

    2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God's people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

    1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

    2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

    1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders of the Church.

    Titus 2:15 - Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he receive by the laying on of hands.

    Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

    1 Peter 2:18 - Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

    1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 - Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

    2 Peter 2:10 - Peter warns about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted by Christ.

    3 John 9 - John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John's apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

    The Church being the final authority on matters of faith and morals:

    IV. The Church is Infallible and Supernatural
    Isaiah 35:8, 54:13-17 - prophecy of the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err.

    Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - early Church identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

    Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them.

    Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. The Reformation says Hades did prevail.

    Matt. 16:19 - binding on earth = bound in heaven = requires infallibility. The Church is prevented from teaching error.

    Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith.

    Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching.

    Mark 8:33 - Jesus rebukes Peter to show severity of Jesus' Messianic role. Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and he was not rebuked for teaching.

    Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. The elders speak with Christ's infallible authority.

    Luke 22:32 - Jesus' prayer for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious - hence, Peter's official teachings on the faith are infallible.

    John 11:51-52 - God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly.

    John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals.

    John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith.

    John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but apostles couldn't bear them at that point. Infallible doctrine develops over time.

    John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth. Knowledge develops as the Spirit guides the Church.

    Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

    Gal. 2:11-14 - Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility does not mean impeccability.

    Gal. 2:11-14 - Peter was the one who taught infallibly on Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you of all people!"

    Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures).

    Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through an infallible Church for all.

    Eph. 3:20 - God's glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church's leaders.

    Eph 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish.

    Eph. 5:32 - Church is a "mystery" so it cannot be understood just by reason. It is not just a building of believers. That is not a mystery. It is supernatural.

    1 Thess. 5:21 - test everything - but we must have something against which to test. This requires an infallible guide above us.

    1 Tim. 3:15 - the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. This requires divine protection from error.

    1 & 2 Peter - Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals.

    Matt. to Rev. - not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (e.g. Trinity). Infallibility is inferred from foregoing passages.

    VI. The Church is Hierarchical
    Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses "ecclesia" only twice in the NT. This proves Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

    1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. God gives His children authority.

    Eph. 4:11 - Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church.

    Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

    1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops (episcopoi) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

    1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests (presbuteroi) who serve the bishops.

    1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons (diakonoi). His Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons.

    Clerical celibacy:

    IV. Celibacy is Church Practice, Not Dogma
    Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy.

    Matt. 22:30 - in heaven there are no marriages. Priests live the heavenly consecration to God on earth to bring about the kingdom of God.

    1 Cor 7:7 - Paul wishes that all were celibate like he is. Celibacy became the practice of the Roman rite in the 12th century.

    1 Cor. 7:32-38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church.

    1 Tim. 3:2 - bishops must be married only once. This refers to bishops that were widowers. They could not remarry.

    1 Tim. 3:2 - also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They could not remarry. Marriage was not a requirement to become a bishop.

    1 Tim. 4:3 - refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. The Church exalts marriage to a sacrament. Celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite.

    1 Tim. 4:3 - in fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving.

    1 Tim. 5:9-12 - older widows recommended to take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

    2 Tim. 2:3-4 - no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him.

    Rev. 14:4 - in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.
  13. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    I'd just like to know from our "Sola Scriptora" friends the location in the bible where it explicitly states that we are to live by the bible - only.

    And I mean it has to be definite and clearly stated that the bible is our sole authority. No metaphors, no symbols, no parables - you point out where it says that the bible is the final abritrator for a life justified by Christ. It can't be one word, line or stanza - it has to be taken in the context in which it is written and can be verified by more than one source.

    You show me that in the bible and I'll revert to Protestantism.

    If you cannot show me in clear, undeniable terms that the bible is the sole source for spiritual guidance, then you can no longer question Catholicism and must justify Protestantism.

    I think that's fair - or at least admit you should convert! ;)

  14. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    United States
    From the same website cited above:

    I. Scripture Alone Disproves "Scripture Alone"
    Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole and exclusive authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates tradition.

    Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached but did not write were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

    Matt. 28:20 - "observe ALL I have commanded," but not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe.

    Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. There is no evidence that the Bible was intended to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

    John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. They are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

    Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own.

    1 Cor. 5:9-11 - prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon.

    1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone. "Bible" is not even in the Bible.

    Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about Scripture alone.

    Col. 4:16 - prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon.

    1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

    2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us "through our Gospel." What is the fullness of the Gospel?

    2 Thess. 2:15 - apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say "letter alone."

    2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone.

    1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

    2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but nothing about all traditions being committed to the Bible.

    2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Scripture + Tradition.

    James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon ("He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…")

    2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one's own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of "public" interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions.

    2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul's letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon.

    2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures.

    1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. God's Word is not always obvious.

    1 Sam. 3:1-9 - the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn't recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

    1 Kings 13:1-32 - a man can't discern between God's word (don't eat) and a prophet's erroneous word (God rescinded don't eat).

    Gen. to Rev. - since Bible has no "inspired contents page," you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys Sola Scriptura. The Church instead had to use apostolic tradition to determine the canon of the Bible.

    Gen. to Rev. - the Church also defined many dogmas such as the Trinity, filioque, incarnation, and the hypostatic union = infallible dogmas, yet not expressly provided in Scripture.

    II. "All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17
    2 Tim. 3:14 - Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Protestants usually ignore this.

    2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised.

    2 Tim. 3:16 - Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. Profitable = "ophelimos" in Greek = useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

    2 Tim. 3:16 - "pasa graphe" = every (not all) Scripture = every passage. The erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. Also, it cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring.

    2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

    2 Tim. 3:17 - "man of God" may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. So the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

    2 Tim. 3:17 - "complete" (artios) for every good work simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman.

    James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." Teleioi and holoklepoi are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

    Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

    2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" (pan ergon agathon) = same as 2 Tim. 3:17. This shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

    Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

    III. Other Passages used to Support "Sola Scriptura"
    John 5:39 - "search the Scriptures" = Jesus was rebuking disbelieving Jews. Jesus tells them to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone."

    John 10:35 - "Scripture cannot be broken" refers to Old Testament Scriptures and has nothing to do with the exclusivity of Scripture.

    John 20:31 - Scripture assists in learning to believe in Jesus - but this passage does not say Scripture is exclusive, or even necessary to be saved by Jesus.

    Acts 17:11-12 - "they searched the Scriptures" = Bereans used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. It does not say they searched the Scriptures alone. Further, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word which disproves Sola Scriptura.

    1 Cor. 4:6 - Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters - don't go above line = don't be arrogant. But even if taken literally, this proves too much because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this.

    Rev. 1:11,19 - Jesus commands John to write - because John was in exile in Patmos and could not preach the Word (which was Jesus' usual command).

    Rev. 22:18-19 - don't add to the prophecies in this "book" - only refers to Revelation, not the Bible which came 300 years later.

    Deut 4:2; 12:32 - God commands same thing here but this did not preclude accepting the Old Testament books after Deuteronomy or the New Testament.
  15. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    Wols! I like the way you think!
  16. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    With all due respect KC and Wols, I have no intention of converting.
  17. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    OK...but know that the door is always open. You can come home anytime you're ready! ;)

    I really don't expect to convert anyone - that's the job of the Holy Spirit. :D
  18. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    So I'm not "home" because I am Protestant? Ok.....

    But you're right only the Holy Spirit does the job. If He ever told me to join the Catholic faith then hey there ya go! Until then I am perfectly happy and at home where I am. Thanks for the chat KC! :)

  19. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    No, no. Its a phrase that's used when someone has converted to Catholicism - they've come home.

    Since the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church, we say you've come back home to your spiritual roots.

    If you are happy in your church and God is working in your life - then that's where you need to be.

    Peace be with you. :D
  20. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    That's what I say KC! If you're a Christian regardless of Catholic or Baptist or whatever denomination, you are home! :D Peace with you as well.

    Isaiah 40:30-31
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.