Why Catholic (And Not Just Christian)?

[Fidelibus]

Largest is correct but not "oldest".

Historically the early believers were called Messianics (Christians) and this first happened in Antioch (Acts 11:26). At that time they had nothing to do with Rome. You will find no reference to a Roman Catholic Church in scriptures.

The word catholic is derived from the Greek kattholikos, meaning universal. The latin is catholicus. Examining the Greek kata is according to and holos is whole.

Basically it means that it is universal in extent and encompassing all, hence universal. Most are unfamiliar with the term meaning universal.

Today when a person says they are Catholic is usually denotes a member of the Roman Catholic Church rather than a universal believer.

Historically the Roman Catholic Church was not the first 'church' as the word church was ekklesia meaning the called out ones.

Today when you say church people usually assume one is speaking of an edifice for public and especially Christian worship whereas others say it the whole body of believers in Christ/Messiah.
Also when you say church people usually assume one is speaking of an edifice for public and especially Christian worship whereas others say it the whole body of believers in Christ/Messiah.

The early believers, the 120 in the upper room, were mainly Jews (disciples, Apostle Paul and others).

They were an irritant to the other Jews in the synogogue because they constantly preached that Jesus Gr. (Yeshua in Hebrew/Aramaic) of Nazereth is the Messiah.

To make a long story short they were called Christians (derived from Greek) but in Hebrew it was Messianics. It was recorded in Acts 11:26 when they were first called this.

One has to understand that in the tradition of Judaism (biblical Judaism not contemporary Judaism) it was acceptable to have differances of opinion on a variety of spiritual issues, so the Messianics were not expecting to be exiled from the synogogue.

The first congregational leader in Jerusalem of the Messianics was the brother of Jesus/Yeshua who is known as James.


Read more: What's The Oldest Sect Of The Christian Religion?

Ok Major1, I went to the web-site where you copied this from (City-Data.com) poster "mDees". Now being you posted it here, one can only presume you agree with this poster 100%, correct? Now,,,,,,, would you also agree that everything he/you said (outside of quoting Scripture) are the words of fallible men who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yours or himself?

The reason I ask that because you/he rest crucial points of yours, not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Maj1, and mDees..... so to speak. Will you also agree it is nothing more than your/his fallible opinion? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with yours/his fallible opinion, as I do, that you/he have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?

 

[Albion]

However, with the exception of the EO, all of these other Churches/Sects where unheard of prior to the Reformation. (a couple of them only in the past hundred or so years)

That is not true. The church in England is the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world. And while your judgment (i.e. unheard of) probably is correct in the case of the JWs and certainly is true of the Mormons, most Protestant churches have a claim on the historic church in just the same way as the Roman Catholic Church can claim to be the same one that we knew before Vatican II. The churches I named were just a few examples off the top of my head, not an exhaustive list of anything.

 

[Fidelibus]

That is not true. The church in England is the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world.

If that is the case, (and as I said earlier) you should have no problem posting ancient and chronological official pre-Reformation documentation proving the church of England existence back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, or the Early Church Fathers. Say, for the first 500 yrs. for notably, during Paul's journeys he became known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

And while doing so, could you also show same ancient and official pre-Reformation documentation showing it (the Church of England) held the same beliefs as the Early Church Fathers?

And while your judgment (i.e. unheard of) probably is correct in the case of the JWs and certainly is true of the Mormons, most Protestant churches have a claim on the historic church in just the same way as the Roman Catholic Church can claim to be the same one that we knew before Vatican II. The churches I named were just a few examples off the top of my head, not an exhaustive list of anything.

Again, I look forward to you posting any ancient pre-Reformation documentation tracing themselves
all the way back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, or the Early Church Fathers for that matter.

Preferably in chronological order as well.

Thanks in advance

 

[Albion]

If that is the case, (and as I said earlier) you should have no problem posting ancient and chronological official pre-Reformation documentation proving the church of England existence back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, or the Early Church Fathers. Say, for the first 500 yrs. for notably, during Paul's journeys he became known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Your own church stated it as true in five of its councils. And yes, there is evidence beyond that as well.

And while doing so, could you also show same ancient and official pre-Reformation documentation showing it (the Church of England) held the same beliefs as the Early Church Fathers?

We know that the early church and the Fathers believed in the Real Presence--but not Transubstantiation. We know that they did not believe in the Papacy, Indulgences, Seven Sacraments, Purgatory, or the Assumption of Mary. On all of these, the English church is in accord with Apostolic Christianity. Guess which denomination is not.

 

[Fidelibus]

Your own church stated it as true in five of its councils. And yes, there is evidence beyond that as well.


We know that the early church and the Fathers believed in the Real Presence--but not Transubstantiation. We know that they did not believe in the Papacy, Indulgences, Seven Sacraments, Purgatory, or the Assumption of Mary. On all of these, the English church is in accord with Apostolic Christianity. Guess which denomination is not.

You are deflecting.

I already know what your view is of the Catholic Church. As I told Major1, I'll repeat to you. You rest your crucial points not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Albion so to speak. Will you also agree this is nothing more than your fallible opinion? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you/he have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?


Now you said that "The church in England is the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world."

This is my second attempt asking you to prove your claim using ancient and chronological official pre-Reformation documentation proving the church of England existence back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, or the Early Church Fathers. Say, for the first 500 yrs. for notably, during Paul's journeys he became known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[Major1]

Ok Major1, I went to the web-site where you copied this from (City-Data.com) poster "mDees". Now being you posted it here, one can only presume you agree with this poster 100%, correct? Now,,,,,,, would you also agree that everything he/you said (outside of quoting Scripture) are the words of fallible men who has no authority whatsoever outside of that which you have vested in yours or himself?

The reason I ask that because you/he rest crucial points of yours, not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Maj1, and mDees..... so to speak. Will you also agree it is nothing more than your/his fallible opinion? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with yours/his fallible opinion, as I do, that you/he have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?

I posted and Identified the source so that everyone could do just as you did. If YOU need more than one souse I can do that for also if one is not enough.

As I have said to YOU many times...…….YOU and everyone else are free to disagree with me on anything whatsoever I post.

YOU come at every debate through the eyes and understanding of Roman Catholic doctrine.

I come at every debate through the eyes of Bible understanding and I am not weighted down with the doctrines of man on theological issues.

The bottom line my dear friend is that ALL MEN ARE FALLIBLE!
YOU, me, Billy Graham, John, Peter, Paul, Mary and yes, the POPE.

Romans 3:23...……….
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

ALL includes every single human being!

Because that is the fact, YOU will "ALWAYS" disagree with everything I post concerning theological issues my friend.

You might as well accept that now as a fact so that we can stop debating religion and focus on the actual and literal Word of God.

 

[Albion]

You are deflecting.

On the contrary, I am responding to something you introduced. I agree that it should not be part of this discussion and am more than happy to have the exchange stay on focus.

I already know what your view is of the Catholic Church. As I told Major1, I'll repeat to you. You rest your crucial points not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Albion so to speak. Will you also agree this is nothing more than your fallible opinion?

It strikes me as incongruous, ludicrous even, to talk as though Sola Scriptura or making the Bible the church's standard of doctrine is somehow not to follow the word of God, but instead to argue for human speculation, custom, legend, "development of doctrine," and Papal decrees.

That not only makes no sense as an argument but it turns the whole proposition on its head. Protestant Christianity rests upon the word of God while the unreformed churches suppose that God supersedes his own revelation through some imaginary consensus of opinion among the believers in one denomination.

Now you said that "The church in England is the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world."

What happened to your opinion that we should stay on topic and not pursue any deflections? Pretty short-lived, wasn't it?

 

[Major1]

You are deflecting.

I already know what your view is of the Catholic Church. As I told Major1, I'll repeat to you. You rest your crucial points not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Albion so to speak. Will you also agree this is nothing more than your fallible opinion? And, would you further agree that when I disagree with your fallible opinion, as I do, that you/he have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?


Now you said that "The church in England is the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world."

This is my second attempt asking you to prove your claim using ancient and chronological official pre-Reformation documentation proving the church of England existence back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, or the Early Church Fathers. Say, for the first 500 yrs. for notably, during Paul's journeys he became known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

You said...…..
"As I told Major1, I'll repeat to you. You rest your crucial points not on the Word of God, but on your fallible, non-authoritative opinion - the Word of Albion so to speak. "

I do not speak for Albion, but if there is ANY theological issue in which you would like to discuss something in which I have deviated from the Word of God, and made something " I " said to be infallible, please list the comment # from ANY post I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

I also then hope that you will reciprocate so that we can discus ANY theological issue in which you and your RCC has deviated from the Word of God.

 

[Fidelibus]

What happened to your opinion that we should stay on topic and not pursue any deflections? Pretty short-lived, wasn't it?

Now you said that "The church in England is the oldest Christian church in the Gentile world."

This is my second attempt asking you to prove your claim using ancient and chronological official pre-Reformation documentation proving the church of England existence back to the time of Jesus and the Apostles, or the Early Church Fathers. Say, for the first 500 yrs. for notably, during Paul's journeys he became known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

In other words...... you cannot. Got it!

 

[Albion]

Frankly, I didn't even read it.

The Church of England is not the subject of this thread. If you want to continue with your deflection just start another thread and I assure you that all sorts of people will join in.

 

[tdidymas]

As a sola scripturists TD, (the bible alone) could you show where the Bible uses the word "Denominations?" Keep in mind, Scripture/ Jesus promised us that His Church would remain "One"/ "Without divisions", and He and the Holy Spirit would remain with It until the end of the world:

Jn 10:16 - there will be one fold and one shepherd.
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
1Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one
1Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church (singular)
Mt 18:17 - tell it to THE Church; if he refuses to listen even to THE Church (singular)

The followers of Jesus were called "disciples of The Way" which is a denomination.
Then they were called "Christians" in Antioch, which is a denomination.
It was distinguishing who was a believer in Christ as opposed to others who weren't.

You appear to be arguing against me as if I don't believe in the unity of Christ. I do believe in the unity of Christ. But I also believe that not everyone who calls Him 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore there is not unity among everyone who calls himself 'Christian' nor will there ever be.

The problem is in the opinions of men, not in the actual spiritual unity of Christ. It is opinions and differences in the way the Bible is interpreted that causes the problem of disunity. It is not the "sola scriptura" idea that is causing disunity, but rather the arrogant and tyrannical attitude of "I have the authority, therefore, my denomination is the true church."

To quote fellow Catholic Christian and poster "Root if Jesse."



IOW....Denominations is a word to discribe the thousands of different Protestant branches of Christianity.


You forgot the word "disagreements." And with all these disagreements among the different branches of Protestantism, by who's or what Authority determines which beliefs or practices are correct, and who's is incorrect?

Unfortunately you believe the "apostolic succession" theory, and so you're stuck. You don't believe that scripture has the final say on doctrine, therefore you have no motivation to study and memorize it until you understand its true meaning. If you did that, then you would easily see that the "apostolic succession" idea is completely wrong.

You couldn't be more wrong. First off, The "Roman Catholic Church" is one of twenty three "Rites" of the Catholic Church, all in full communion with the Pope. Secondly, none of the the ones you listed are on the list of twenty three. However, there are Religious Orders that have a rich history and are important and integral components of the Catholic Church, such as...the Franciscans, Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, Missionaries of Mercy, (St. Mother Teresa's Order) and the Carmelites to name a few.

If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, regardless of what you call it.
TD

 

[Albion]

Unfortunately you believe the "apostolic succession" theory, and so you're stuck. You don't believe that scripture has the final say on doctrine, therefore you have no motivation to study and memorize it until you understand its true meaning. If you did that, then you would easily see that the "apostolic succession" idea is completely wrong.

Just a clarification here. Apostolic Succession relates to the administration of the visible church; it is not a method of determining doctrine. It appears that, in some churches, it became a blank check for doctrinal innovation, but that is not inherent in the term or the concept.

 

[Fidelibus]

I posted and Identified the source so that everyone could do just as you did. If YOU need more than one souse I can do that for also if one is not enough.

You can post as many as you like. The point I was making is that unless otherwise stated, you agree with this fallible poster 100%..... correct? Even though he could be in error.

As I have said to YOU many times...…….YOU and everyone else are free to disagree with me on anything whatsoever I post.

That's right, because you and he have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, and these opinions could be in error..... correct?

YOU come at every debate through the eyes and understanding of Roman Catholic doctrine.

Thats not entirely true. I come to these debates through the eyes and teachings of The Holy Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself!

I come at every debate through the eyes of Bible understanding and I am not weighted down with the doctrines of man on theological issues.

Oh but you are! You are weighted down with the recent, (500 yrs.) man-made, unbiblical, doctrine of sola scriptura!

The bottom line my dear friend is that ALL MEN ARE FALLIBLE!
YOU, me, Billy Graham, John, Peter, Paul, Mary and yes, the POPE.

Here's some breaking news for ya..... The Pope does sin and goes to confession just like the rest of us 1.2 billion Catholics! Also, being you always post what you beleive Catholic Doctrine to be, I'm surprised you didn't know that Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality. And that the charism of infallibility is fully engaged only in definitive Magisterial teachings on faith and morals. This can occur in either…Ordinary teachings, or Extraordinary teachings The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. It is exercised by the Pope alone when he teaches officially, or by the whole “college” of bishops together with the Pope.

Romans 3:23...……….
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

ALL includes every single human being!

Including babies in the womb, children under the age of reason, or the severly mentalilty handicapped? I mean, you do say ALL includes every single human being. Surley you are not suggesting that those I mentioned are not human beings?

Because that is the fact, YOU will "ALWAYS" disagree with everything I post concerning theological issues my friend.

Not true.... you too believe in the Holy Trinity, Jesus born of a virgin, ect. ect. right? I just don't agree with your belief in the man-made, un-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, and that you have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?

You might as well accept that now as a fact so that we can stop debating religion and focus on the actual and literal Word of God.

And 'You" might as well accept and admit that your understanding, and interpretation of the Word of God could be in error, and that you have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me or any one else wrong? You willing to accept/admit that?

 

[Fidelibus]

Frankly, I didn't even read it.

The Church of England is not the subject of this thread. If you want to continue with your deflection just start another thread and I assure you that all sorts of people will join in.

maybe I will!

 

[Major1]

You can post as many as you like. The point I was making is that unless otherwise stated, you agree with this fallible poster 100%..... correct? Even though he could be in error.




That's right, because you and he have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, and these opinions could be in error..... correct?



Thats not entirely true. I come to these debates through the eyes and teachings of The Holy Catholic Church, the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself!



Oh but you are! You are weighted down with the recent, (500 yrs.) man-made, unbiblical, doctrine of sola scriptura!




Here's some breaking news for ya..... The Pope does sin and goes to confession just like the rest of us 1.2 billion Catholics! Also, being you always post what you beleive Catholic Doctrine to be, I'm surprised you didn't know that Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality. And that the charism of infallibility is fully engaged only in definitive Magisterial teachings on faith and morals. This can occur in either…Ordinary teachings, or Extraordinary teachings The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Catholic Church. It is exercised by the Pope alone when he teaches officially, or by the whole “college” of bishops together with the Pope.




Including babies in the womb, children under the age of reason, or the severly mentalilty handicapped? I mean, you do say ALL includes every single human being. Surley you are not suggesting that those I mentioned are not human beings?




Not true.... you too believe in the Holy Trinity, Jesus born of a virgin, ect. ect. right? I just don't agree with your belief in the man-made, un-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, and that you have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me wrong?




And 'You" might as well accept and admit that your understanding, and interpretation of the Word of God could be in error, and that you have no authority, outside of your own fallible opinion, to declare me or any one else wrong? You willing to accept/admit that?

The point is as it has always been my friend. If anyone believes the Bible and teaches the Bible and has comments that agree with the Bible, then YES I will always agree with him, or it.

But just like anything else, if a man or a website then goes off the rails and says something that it not validated by the Scriptures then I will disagree with what is said at that time.

For some reason you just do not seem to be able to understand what I have said so many times I can not remember. As I said and say again, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY. I am not infallible and neither are you or the POPE!

I must disagree with you as will every other person whom you debate with. YOU bring with YOU only YOUR RCC teachings as given to you by the RCC. YOU do not and have not to the best of my knowledge ever said anything different that what the RCC has taught you. Some of that is really good but some of it is not god and is not found in the Bible.

You said...…………
"You are weighted down with the recent, (500 yrs.) man-made, unbiblical, doctrine of sola scriptura!"

Now I would say to you that here is some breaking news for ya but I have said this to you so many times now it just seems that you can not understand what I/We are saying to you. YOU simply do not understand the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

But again...…"SOLA SCRIPTURA" IS NOT A DOCTRINE AT ALL.

It is instead a "Method/Process" (IMO) which the individual person can learn and grow in knowledge of God.

YOU have and still do use the phrase a whipping stick to beat over the heads of those who actually do understand the process it allows.
YOU have said many times erroneously that it removes authority from the church.

It is not a doctrine that teaches we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the authority of the Word of God. In other words, the authority of the Word of God is not dependent upon, nor is it validated by the declarations of the church, as had been taught to YOU by the RCC.

Sola Scriptura does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, or that there will not be differences and heresies among Christians. Jesus was clear enough in His teaching, yet His disciples often misunderstood Him. The apostles' message was also perfectly intelligible, and yet all sorts of errors and heresies crept in the early church.

Similarly, the Bible is not written in a mysterious and cryptic code that needs some infallible decoder to explain its hidden meaning. The Bible is addressed to the ordinary people of God and it can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible, but with people who often ignore the Bible or twist the its meaning because of laziness, ignorance and prejudice.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/sola_scriptura.shtm
The real question which you have not asked is , what is the infallible rule of faith?'

That remains the major dividing issue between Catholics and Protestants. And rightly so. We are building on different foundations.

YOU have and will continue to say something like this...….
'God's Word is found in the Bible and in Tradition. But you can't understand the Bible correctly. As for Tradition, no one knows exactly what it contains. Therefore you must submit without reservations to the Pope and the bishops of the Roman church. The teaching of the Catholic magisterium is the infallible rule of faith.'

But a Protestant Evangelical answers differently...…………..
'The Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that God's people may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.'

 

[tdidymas]

Just a clarification here. Apostolic Succession relates to the administration of the visible church; it is not a method of determining doctrine. It appears that, in some churches, it became a blank check for doctrinal innovation, but that is not inherent in the term or the concept.

I'm sure that what you say might have been the original intent of the council that instituted it. But the final result is the claim that the RCC is the "only true church" espoused by every Catholic I've talked to so far.
TD

 

[Albion]

I'm sure that what you say might have been the original intent of the council that instituted it. [/quote
It isn't based upon a councils decision.

[quote But the final result is the claim that the RCC is the "only true church" espoused by every Catholic I've talked to so far.
TD

It is true that the RCC makes much of Apostolic Succession--and the RCC also has a particular and dubious twist on the matter--but Apostolic Succession is certainly not something that is peculiar to the Church of Rome.

Most Christians belong to denominations that believe in Apostolic Succession and whose clergy operate according to it. That includes Greek Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans, Armenians, Lutherans, Methodists, and a bunch of smaller denominations.

 

[Fidelibus]

The point is as it has always been my friend. If anyone believes the Bible and teaches the Bible and has comments that agree with the Bible, then YES I will always agree with him or it.

And my point has always been my friend (and you have yet answered) among all the different Protestant churches and sects, what authority determines who's comments agree with the bible, and who's does not. What if you and this poster disagreed on a certain bible passage, who determines who's right and who's wrong?

But just like anything else, if a man or a website then goes off the rails and says something that it not validated by the Scriptures then I will disagree with what is said at that time.

Again.... by what or who's authority in Protestantism determines what someone says is validated by Scripture or invalidated?

For some reason you just do not seem to be able to understand what I have said so many times I can not remember. As I said and say again, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY.

Oh.... I understand, and agree when it comes to interpreting/understanding Scripture, you have no authority over me or anyone else. And I am happy to see you agree. So...... I would suggest when you post Scripture passages and give your personal fallible opinion on said passage, you might want to add with said post that your interpretation/understanding is subject to error. Willing to do that?

I am not infallible and neither are you or the POPE!

You infallible? I agree. As for the Pope, Scripture disagrees with you.In St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus gives Peter alone “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” and the power to “bind and loose” (Matt. 16:16-20). Peter’s unique authority is powerfully exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, when Peter made a definitive ruling regarding circumcision “and all the assembly kept silence” (Acts 15:12).

As the chief “overseer” of the Church, Peter—and his successors—was to maintain doctrinal purity, as well as doctrinal unity, in the Church. The eminent Protestant scholar James D.G. Dunn affirms this unitive role:

"It is Peter who becomes the focal point of unity for the whole Church . . . he became the most hopeful symbol of unity for that growing Christianity which more and more came to think of itself as the Church Catholic” (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, 386).

Writing in the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives important testimony to the primacy of the Pope. Dealing with the Gnostic heretics in the second century, he asserted that the beliefs of every local Christian church must be congruent, not just with apostolic tradition, but with the teachings of every other Christian church. Why? Because the Church is essentially Catholic. The primary way, wrote the ancient bishop of Lyons, that Christ ensures the unity of his Church is through the Petrine office: the church in Rome “is the greatest and most important and best-known of all . . . For with this church, because of her more powerful pre-eminence all churches must agree” (Against Heresies, III, 3.2) . (source:reasonablecatholic.com)

I must disagree with you as will every other person whom you debate with.

Really??? How do you know this? Sounds as if you are saying you have some sort of authority over "every other person." that debates with me. Or you know whats in thier hearts. Hmmmm... With all respect Maj1, I find that a very odd thing to say.

YOU bring with YOU only YOUR RCC teachings as given to you by the RCC.

Incorrect.... I bring with me the teachings of the "Catholic Church." For the ump-tenth time, the Roman Catholic Church is one of many Rites of the Catholic Church, all which are in full communion with the Pope.

YOU do not and have not to the best of my knowledge ever said anything different that what the RCC has taught you.

F.Y.I. Thats because I am a Catholic Christian. (converted, was a member of every Protestant church or sect at one time untill the Holy Spirit led me to Christs true Church) Again... The RCC is one of many Rites of the Catholic Church.

Some of that is really good but some of it is not god and is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic Church has never claimed to be God!

 

[Fidelibus]

You said...…………"You are weighted down with the recent, (500 yrs.) man-made, unbiblical, doctrine of sola scriptura!"

Sola Scriptura was unheard of for the first fourteen hundred plus years of Christianity

Now I would say to you that here is some breaking news for ya but I have said this to you so many times now it just seems that you can not understand what I/We are saying to you. YOU simply do not understand the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

Do you believe that the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?

But again...…"SOLA SCRIPTURA" IS NOT A DOCTRINE AT ALL.

Say's who? By who's or what authority determined it is not? Yours?

It is instead a "Method/Process" (IMO) which the individual person can learn and grow in knowledge of God.

Ah..... I see, in your opinion, which could be in error, correct? (i.e. fallible, correct?)

YOU have and still do use the phrase a whipping stick to beat over the heads of those who actually do understand the process it allows. YOU have said many times erroneously that it removes authority from the church.

You mean "Churches" Plural, as in thousands of different non-Catholic/Protestant churches/sects. If any two of these churches disagree on any Scripture verses, (which I could give plenty of examples) where in Sola Scriptura does it teach by who's or what authority has the final say?

It is not a doctrine that teaches we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that all other authorities must be subordinate to the authority of the Word of God.

Say's who?

In other words, the authority of the Word of God is not dependent upon, nor is it validated by the declarations of the church, as had been taught to YOU by the RCC.

But you will admit your opinion here could be in error.... right? Fallible.

Sola Scriptura does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, or that there will not be differences and heresies among Christians.

I am happy to see you agree that without any type of authority that any church can interpret the bible they see correct, and everyone else incorrect. Hence: Thousands of different churches and sects, all being their very own little pope

Jesus was clear enough in His teaching, yet His disciples often misunderstood Him. The apostles' message was also perfectly intelligible, and yet all sorts of errors and heresies crept in the early church.

By what authority did you determine this? and how early?

Similarly, the Bible is not written in a mysterious and cryptic code that needs some infallible decoder to explain its hidden meaning. The Bible is addressed to the ordinary people of God and it can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible, but with people who often ignore the Bible or twist the its meaning because of laziness, ignorance and prejudice.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/sola_scriptura.shtm
The real question which you have not asked is , what is the infallible rule of faith?'

According to the Acts of the Apostles, an Ethiopian of the first century found himself in the same situation with respect to a passage from the Book of Isaiah (Is. 53:7-8) and recognized that he had need of an interpreter (Acts 8:30-35). The Second Letter of Peter insists that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and it also observes that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficult passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they do also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their own ruin" (2 Pt. 3: 16).

[Staff edit].

YOU have and will continue to say something like this...….
'God's Word is found in the Bible and in Tradition. But you can't understand the Bible correctly.

Really Maj1, this dosen't sound like you being a bit authoritive, telling me I can't understand the Bible correctly? Hmmmm......

I'd like to back up a bit Major1. Back on post #27 you said:

Romans 3:23...……….
"ALL have sinned and come short of the approval of God".

ALL includes every single human being!

And I asked,

"Including babies in the womb, children under the age of reason, or the severly mentalilty handicapped? I mean, you do say ALL includes every single human being. Surley you are not suggesting that those I mentioned are not human beings?"

Couldn't help but noticed you passed this up, care to respond now?

 

[Albion]

And my point has always been my friend (and you have yet answered) among all the different Protestant churches and sects, what authority determines who's comments agree with the bible, and who's does not. What if you and this poster disagreed on a certain bible passage, who determines who's right and who's wrong?

By and large, the answer in the case of Protestants is the same as in your own church.

The church has a standard of belief, and it is promulgated in one or more creeds or official statements. There is really no issue here, despite how hard you are working to find one.