Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by Annabel Lee
In real life I do not run across Protestant paranoia against the Catholic Church.
The only place I do see it is on messageboards. Possibly it's because of the anonymity. For the most part non-Catholic Christians are very loving towards their Catholic brothers and sisters.
I think what we are seeing on sites like RR and occasionally on CF is a very vocal minority.
This vocal minority in no way, represents Protestanism.
Originally posted by Miss Shelby
Well, I'm basing that on my limited exposure to what seems to be 'Protestant paranoia or anti-Catholicism'---Some Protestants (certainly not the majority, but the ones who exhibit the paranoia)--for the most part do not want to admit that Christianity started with the catholic church,
or that Tradition is what ultimately led to the compling of the Scriptures. [/B]
I mean, if they don't agree with certain aspects of the Catholic Faith, fine. But at least acknowledge the history of the Church for what it is....where their Christian roots originated. [/B]
Many do not do that, in fact they deny it. And not only do they deny it, but they make the Church into something evil. And when I see that sort of attitude exhibited, it reminds me of rebellious children. Just my opinion, though.
Michelle [/B]
Originally posted by Blackhawk
**I am taking my mod hat off now. This is my own personal opinions. **
Now I know you meant well here but I have some problems with this post.
I am not ant-Catholicism. However I do not believe that Christianity started with the Catholic church.
I
Originally posted by his-girl
I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.
Originally posted by Mephster
actually, I'm not real sure on this point. The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatement), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox." In general, Protestants use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support their notion of sola scriptura.
"All Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, in order that the man of God may be fit, fully equipped for every good work."
By focusing on the word inspiration, they imply that the Bible is the Christian's sole and final authority. Their underlying premiss is that Scripture is the only truth that is divinely inspired, therefore it can and must be our only divine authority.
Protestants use the words like: "primary," "absolute," "final court," and "all doctrine" to set the parameters around their definition. However, none of these words, nor their lexical equivalents, does Scripture ever apply to itself.
What do y'all think about this?
Originally posted by his-girl
will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, then neither should Christians.
Originally posted by his-girl
I know what I'm about to print will cause quite a few Catholics to become angry, this is not my intent. Since BrainDamage posted this thread with the intent to bring further division between Protestants and Catholics, IMHO. I felt the need to rebuke his post and clarify the Protestant view point.
However, I know scores of Catholics who have received manifold spiritual blessings through reception of the sacraments, and who bear the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit by the manner of the lives they lead.And the caths they got to line stuff up... infant baptism which I do believe at this point is not honored by God... then first communion, then confirmation... like there is a day that everyone goes to the church they put their hand on your head and you receive the holy spirit.
well got to tell you it just aint true. Nothing happened.. And I could have accepted Christ as a six year old if they hadn't put all those rules in my way and then so... by the time I was 15 at confirmation I was already lost.
Actually, I believe it was Paul that told us that, but that's besides the point.Jesus tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
The Catholic Church has added nothing to the Deposit of the Christian Faith. The various Protestant churches, however, have subtracted much Christian doctrine which God has revealed through Apostolic Tradition.It is apparent, that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture.
Apostolic Tradition is not the tradition of man, however---it is the revealed Word of God. Jesus condemned the traditions of the Saducees and Pharisees, true. But He never condemned Christian Tradition; at the time He was lambasting the Saducees and Pharisees, Christian Tradition didn't exist yet; it was still in the process of being formed.The Catholic Church often attempts to give human traditions higher authority than God's Word.
As aforementioned, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is inspired. To the contrary, in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Thess 3:6, Paul tells his listeners to adhere to Tradition, and shun those who do not. Further, the Church is the final authority, not the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 does not call the Bible the pillar and foundation of the truth.Since Scripture alone is inspired, it alone is the ultimate authority and it alone is the final judge of Tradition.
Correct.Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition.
The Mass (being the celebration of the Eucharist), the priesthood (Holy Orders), and Penance are sacraments, and ergo are part of the Deposit of the Faith, not Doctrines. Purgatory and indulgences are also part of the Deposit, not Doctrines. The veneration of Mary falls under Dogma, insofar as the defined teachings about her are concerned; this is also not Doctrine. The distinction between venial and mortal sins is Scripture, coming from 1 John 5:16-17; this also renders it Deposit. The Rosary and sacred images are Devotions, which are nowhere near Doctrines.Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.
There is nothing in any Catholic teaching which contradicts the Bible. There's quite a bit of Catholic teaching teaching which contradicts the Protestant interpretation of the Bible, however.The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible?
I might say the same thing for Martin Luther's novel idea that the Bible alone is the sole rule for all faith and doctrine. He could claim that all he liked, but claims do not make it true.But, by what authority does the Catholic Church say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? Claims do not make it true!
Tradition is authenticated by the Deposit of the Faith---meaning Scripture and Tradition together.Is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition?
Says who, and using what criteria?If so, then there is no check upon it.
No. The Fathers merely quote Tradition; they do not constitute an inspired authority in and of themselves.Is it from quotes of some of the church Fathers who say to follow Tradition?
Moot point in light of above.If so, then the church fathers are given the place of authority comparable to scripture.
Partially.Is it from the Bible?
But Tradition is also used as the authority in validating the Bible.If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition.
Now we're getting warm.Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth?
Authority-wise, you are correct. The Bible is the product of the Church, not the other way 'round.Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
Okay, so you tell me: Before the Scriptures were written down---when they still consisted of words and concepts inside the minds of the authors---when they were still simply instructions and memories and exhortations which were passed from one person to another by word of mouth of one Apostle or another---what were they? Not Scripture. "Scripture" means "that which is written". But if there was an extant body of teaching which the Apostles had inside their heads and were teaching by word of mouth (and don't forget, the first Christian Scriptures weren't even written for 40-odd years after Jesus went back to heaven) that constitutes Tradition. And if some of that Tradition later got written down, that became Scripture. So your contention that Tradition did not produce Scripture is false. Scripture didn't simply fall out of the sky, already written. It had to be physically produced by a man sitting down and putting a pen to parchment. The thoughts and concepts that the Holy Spirit had put into his mind in order for him to write them down to begin with is Inspiration, which can be passed on two ways: orally (or Tradition), or in writing (which is Scripture).Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.
But if the Church had no authoritative body of established Tradition in order to know what Jesus actually taught, what were they comparing these Biblical books with as they written, in order to know for sure that they were inspired? If I know nothing about what Jesus taught, and somebody comes along and says, "Hey, I wrote a book about Christianity", how do I know what the guy has written is true? On the other hand, if an Apostle has come through twenty years ago and taught us all what Jesus said, and the same guy comes up and says, "Hey, I wrote a book about Christianity", I can read his book and compare it with what I already know to be true, and decide on the basis of that whether it stacks up or not.The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible.
Notice that Jesus does not specify whether that Word was written or unwritten. The written Word of God is Scripture. The unwritten Word of God is Tradition.The Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, identified truth with the written Word. In His great high priestly prayer, He said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
The rallying cry of the Reformation. But 'twas not always so, I'm afraid.There is no source other than Scripture alone to which such a statement applies. That source alone, the Holy Scripture, is the believer's standard of truth.
True. For both the written and unwritten Word.this command shows emphatically that it is God's Word alone that is pure and uncontaminated.
And the origin of the Scripture itself would be........the Holy Spirit, n'est ce pas? And if the Holy Spirit is capable of keeping the written page uncontaminated, you're saying that He is incapable of keeping the oral Tradition uncontaminated? I thought God was not limited.Logically then, Peter makes it very clear that in order to maintain the purity of Holy God's written word, the source of interpretation must be from the same pure source as the origin of the Scripture itself.
You're still inserting the idea that when Scripture speaks of the Word, then it has to written. Words are spoken as well as written. God is not limited to words on paper only. There is nothing magical about printed words. They are merely a means to pass on concpets, the same way that spoken words can pass on concepts.The believer is to be true to the way of the Lord, holding alone to what is written: "Thy Word is truth."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?