A compelling non-Catholic argument

[justasking4]

This is a great reference, but I don’t see how it proves that Jesus is not bigger than the word that is written about Him.

My point is that the Scriptures were used by God to communicate with us and tell us things that we could not have known. Its not that Jesus is not “bigger” than the Scriptures but that the Scriptures which have their source in Him tells us who Jesus really is and how to think, believe and serve Him. Jesus had the highest view of them and we are to know them deeply because the reveal the mind of God to us.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3403032]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I honestly don’t know how you can say this. By the time of Jesus there was already the OT inspired-inerrant Scriptures which predates by centuries before the church came into being.

guanophore
It was the Catholic Church that defined which Scriptures were used by Jesus and the Apostles, and assembled them into one book. There were many collections of the "Law, Psalms and the Prophets. The Jews did not canonize their scriptures until after the first century, and purposefully excluded books and teachings used by Jesus and the Apostles to distinguish themselves from the Christians.

Did the Jews in the NT time of Christ believe that their books of the OT were inspired-inerrant? Did Jesus believe they were also?

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3403153]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Just because you say something doesn’t mean its true or accepted. I have just shown you one of many examples that refutes your claim has never erred. I have presented many facts to demonstrate this but for many catholics it cannot be true since their church tells them it cannot be. This is the same kind of argumentation i get from Mormons and the cults.

Is it not true that for centuries he was one of the heretics mentioned that popes were to take some kind of vow when they officially became popes? It was some kind statement popes had to make.

CentralFLJames
Least you forget the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah yet Christians know it to be the truth.

This is not entirely correct. Many Jews did. Not only the populace but some leaders. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea not to mention some Pharisees. See Acts 15:5 and John 8:31.

Truth is never held to a standard of of majority rule or consent.

I agree. What are the conditions for something to be true and to be called Truth?

Nonetheless I have give you irrefutable evidence that the Pope you mentioned while being declared heretical BY THE CHURH (not by non believers) for not decisively quashing heretical developments outside the church never himself gave heretical teaching. You refuse to counter this fact with any objective evidence so I can only assume you have none to offer and can only make unsubstantiated claims.

I don’t have a clue what you are referring to in your last statement.

Here is what later councils said about pope Honorius:
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was deposed in the 12th session. In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelitic heretics mentioned in the letter of Pope Agatho, i.e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theodore of Pharan, the council added : “**And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, **because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.” A similar condemnation of Pope Honorius occurs in the dogmatic decree of the final session (16 Sept., 681), which was signed by the legates and the emperor.

CentralFLJames
Sorry try again. Care to make anymore claims where The Church allegedly was fallable in its teaching?

Hint: there are none - the expert anti-catholics have already all been soundly defeated in this false charge.

What is your criteria that you would use to determine if your church might have erred?

James

 

[guanophore]

My point is that the Scriptures were used by God to communicate with us and tell us things that we could not have known. Its not that Jesus is not “bigger” than the Scriptures but that the Scriptures which have their source in Him tells us who Jesus really is and how to think, believe and serve Him. Jesus had the highest view of them and we are to know them deeply because the reveal the mind of God to us.

Yes, the Scriptures are part of the Divine Revelation, and tell us things about God that we could not find out on our own. They are part of God’s self disclosure to us. They, like the Sacred Tradition from which they came, have their source in God. I agree that they tell us who Jesus is, but the Scriptures cannot teach us “how to think, believe and serve”. These are the duties of the Church. This is because each person understands the Scriptures differently when they read them. That is why there is such a variety of how believers “think, believe, and serve”. The purpose of the Church is to help believers understand how to apply the Scriptures, so they can worship in spiritn, and in truth.

Did the Jews in the NT time of Christ believe that their books of the OT were inspired-inerrant? Did Jesus believe they were also?

Some Jews believed that about some books. Some Jews rejected large parts of what Jesus considered inspired-inerrant. The Church chose the books that were used by Jesus and the Apostles.

This is not entirely correct. Many Jews did. Not only the populace but some leaders. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea not to mention some Pharisees. See Acts 15:5 and John 8:31.

But most did not, only a remnant of the Jews believed. Those that later canonized the Jewish Scriptures did not believe.

I agree. What are the conditions for something to be true and to be called Truth?

Grace and Truth come from Jesus. That is why the Catholic Church teaches Truth, because the teachings are from Jesus.

] "**And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, **

I don’t see the relevance of this. The Church has never claimed that individuals cannot sin. People who sin are separated from the Church by their sins. Peter sinned in behaving hypocritically. He repented of his sin, so he was not anathamatized.

What is your criteria that you would use to determine if your church might have erred?

I would consider this an arrogant position from which to proceed. If I thought something the Church teaches didn’t agree with the Bible, then I would begin from the position that I was deficient in my understanding. I would assume the Church is right, because she has Jesus as her Head, and the HS as her soul.

 

[Orionthehunter]

If what you say is true that “Jesus and His Church are one and the same” then it follows that Jesus is also responsible for all the evil that has been done by catholic leaders. This is what follows from your assertion.

You need to understand the distinction between the impeccability of members and the infallibility on TEACHING of Faith and Morals. If you understood, this you’d see the nonsense of this statement.

Were catholics obligated to follow and listen to some of the evil popes of the past? Did not God place these men as leaders in the catholic church?

Yes and Yes. Your point?

Are there any passages in the NT that show that Peter alone was
recognized as being the supreme leader of the entire church?

Does Peter himself ever speak of himself like this in any of his letters?

Are there any passages in the NT that show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one? Does the Holy Spirit refer to Himself as God? Remember it is the Holy Spirit who inspired the authors.

I can accept that protestants do err. i expect it. However, catholics claim their church cannot err in matters of faith and morals and yet we have many many examples that shows that they have. Even their vicars of Christ have erred. I can see why it is so difficult to accept this as a catholic given what you have been taught.

Name a single teaching of Morals and Faith which you believe the Church has erred. Just name one and on whose authority you make such judgment.

Have you looked at what Luke 24:25-27 says in regards to what Jesus said after His resurrection and how the Scriptures foretold this:
25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?”
27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

It is beautiful yet sad and True. What is your point?

The mere fact that a pope not only taught error but was corrected is another fact that shows your church is not protected from erring. If it was, this would never have happened.

For a picture of true infalliblity look at the Lord Jesus in the gospels. He never once erred in anything He said or did. This is the criteria for infalliblity. Thats why any church or man who claims to be infallible is deceived or a false teacher.

With regard to this “mere fact”, it has been repudiated as a lie. If you base your opinions on lies, you are not listening to the Lord.

You are most correct that Jesus never erred. I wonder why you have such little faith that God can’t protect His Church from error.

Just because you say something doesn’t mean its true or accepted. I have just shown you one of many examples that refutes your claim has never erred. I have presented many facts to demonstrate this but for many catholics it cannot be true since their church tells them it cannot be. This is the same kind of argumentation i get from Mormons and the cults.

Is it not true that for centuries he was one of the heretics mentioned that popes were to take some kind of vow when they offically became popes? It was some kind statement popes had to make.

I’ve already asked you to name a single false Teaching and your authority. Please list it.

I have no idea what you are talking about in the second paragraph. Sure sounds like some lie you faintly remember in some of your readings outside of Scripture.

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is not entirely correct. Many Jews did. Not only the populace but some leaders. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea not to mention some Pharisees. See Acts 15:5 and John 8:31.

True. Also, there is ironically some modern following that evidence from Jewish oral tradition as well as NT scripture suggests that some of the Sanhedrin themselves knew and believed that Jesus was the Messiah and actually went along with the crucifixion to role play their part and never let the general Jewish population know their private thoughts. The resurrection of Lazarus and the other signs of curing the blind man etc. were all quite compelling. I take Caiaphas’ prophecy as compelling evidence of this:
John 11:47-53:

Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, “**What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. **48 “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and **the Romans **will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they planned together to kill Him.

My take is that Jewish leaders were more afraid of losing their culture, and their way of life to the Romans who would have persecuted them unmercifully if they appointed Jesus as leader. In essence they were more fearful of the Romans losing their identity and lifestyle as they knew than they were afraid of God. This just goes to show you how secularized and corrupt the Jewish leaders had become in essentially becoming “Rome” just to keep themselves in power. Now tell me again why you want to trust the non-converted Jews with defining for you what scripture is???

The point remains that those Jews and Jewish leaders who elected to embrace the old teaching despised the Christians. The original point here was about The Jews not accepting the Septuagint a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Jewish opposition to the additional books of the second collection was due to the circumstances in which the Jews lived and to the spirit of the times. During the last centuries which preceded the coming of Christ the Jews - because of the captivities, persecutions and antagonisms from outside nations became more and more conservative and looked with increasing suspicion on anything that was new. Since the additional books were of comparatively recent origin and since some of them were written in Greek - the language of paganism - they naturally aroused the opposition of the Jews. The fact, too, that the early Christians used the Septuagint in their controversies with the Jews only served to confirm the latter in their opposition to this translation of the Old Testament.

The Apostles themselves referenced these books so they BECOME AUTOMATICALLY A PART OF SCRIPTURE! LUTHER committed a profound act of desecration by removing these works.

The True Church considers the FULL word of God not an abbreviated “Bible Light” version for those that can’t stand to hear it all. Reasons for the Church accepting the Septuagint:

1. **The Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally the Septuagint. In fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken from the Septuagint. **
2. Some of the New Testament writers made use of the additional books themselves, particularly of the Book of Wisdom, which seems to have been St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of St. James - to take another example - shows an acquaintance with the Book of Ecclesiasticus. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the additional books, did they not thereby approve the entire Septuagint collection?
3. The additional books were accepted in the Church from the beginning. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written before the end of the first century, makes use of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, gives an analysis of the book of Judith, and quotes from the additional sections of the book of Esther. The same is true of other early Christian writers.
4. The oldest Christian Bibles in existence (Codex Vaticanus, etc.) contain the additional books intermingled with the rest, just as we find them in the Catholic Bibles today.
5. The oldest Christian lists of Biblical books contain the additional books. In 382 Pope Damasus in a Roman Council issued a formal list of Old and New Testament books and the list contains the same books as we have in our Bibles.

More Here: Why is the Protestant Bible Missing So Much of God’s Word?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I agree. What are the conditions for something to be true and to be called Truth?

You essentially ask the very same question Pilot did before he turned Christ over for crucifixion.

John 18:38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him. "

The answer is in John 18:37 ‘…I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’

Th Catholic Church has consistently taught ONE TRUTH for 2,000 years. There is NO OTHER CHURCH on the planet that can make that claim. Ironically though we were warned that eventually a legion of false teachers would appear to deceive man with utter false teaching and lies. The Catholic Church was present from the very beginning at the foot of the cross in the dutiful and loyal witness of St. John and St. Mary. Indeed “what is truth” when over 30,000 different Protestant sect teachings pop up like tares in the wheat 500 years ago shortly after Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church. Even a completly blind man can see this. Listen to what Jesus tells us through 2 Timothy 3-4:

‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers [ed: note plural] in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth…’

This sure sounds to be like the very same anti-Catholic/anti-truth people who want to have their cake and eat it to in the utterly false doctrine of “once saved always saved”. What heathen or pagan could ever resist a religion where they get a shot at immortal bliss while getting a free lunch ticket to commit every sin of the flesh they wanted while waiting to enter paradise? That even trumps Islam’s promise of 72 virgins in the hereafter…

Here is what later councils said about pope Honorius:
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch was deposed in the 12th session. In the thirteenth session (28 March, 681) after anathematizing the chief Monothelitic heretics mentioned in the letter of Pope Agatho, i.e. Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and Theodore of Pharan, the council added : “**And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed **his opinion in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.” A similar condemnation of Pope Honorius occurs in the dogmatic decree of the final session (16 Sept., 681), which was signed by the legates and the emperor.

What is your criteria that you would use to determine if your church might have erred?

This adds nothing new to the debate or the argument. Note that the very words you quote talk about Pope Honorius’ PERSONAL doctrine. THIS WAS NOT CHURCh doctrine that was taught. It never got distribute to the faithful. See my original post. You are just obscuring the facts with hyperbola.

The criteria I personally would use to determine if The Church might have erred would be Jesus coming down from heaven with Peter and Paul to correct the Church in person. But we know already that err is impossible since Jesus gave His word The Church never would err in its teachings. So your scenario is purely hypothetical. It would require a complete reversal and countermindment of a prior popes infallable ex-cathedra teaching that has been properly expressed with the “define” formula.

For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as “We declare, decree and define…”), or (2) **an accompanying anathema **stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.

James

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3405858]

Originally Posted by justasking4
My point is that the Scriptures were used by God to communicate with us and tell us things that we could not have known. Its not that Jesus is not “bigger” than the Scriptures but that the Scriptures which have their source in Him tells us who Jesus really is and how to think, believe and serve Him. Jesus had the highest view of them and we are to know them deeply because the reveal the mind of God to us.

guanophore
Yes, the Scriptures are part of the Divine Revelation, and tell us things about God that we could not find out on our own. They are part of God’s self disclosure to us. They, like the Sacred Tradition from which they came, have their source in God. I agree that they tell us who Jesus is, but the Scriptures cannot teach us “how to think, believe and serve”.

If that is the case then why does Paul write in Colossians 3:1-3 in how to think?
3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
In this passage he instructs the believers via this letter the Christians at Colosse how they are to think and what to strive for.
If you read further on he gets very specific about how they are personally to deal with sin and pursue Christ in very practical ways.

Other passages to look at would be Romans 12:1-2 which also deals with our minds and what we need to do.

These are the duties of the Church. This is because each person understands the Scriptures differently when they read them. That is why there is such a variety of how believers “think, believe, and serve”. The purpose of the Church is to help believers understand how to apply the Scriptures, so they can worship in spiritn, and in truth.

i agree in part. However even with teachers in the church you will not always have a uniformity of teachings. Not all believe indentically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did the Jews in the NT time of Christ believe that their books of the OT were inspired-inerrant? Did Jesus believe they were also?

guanophore
Some Jews believed that about some books. Some Jews rejected large parts of what Jesus considered inspired-inerrant. The Church chose the books that were used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Paul in Romans 3:1-2 makes his case for how important the Jews were and their place in God’s plan when he writes–
1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that** they were entrusted with the oracles of God.**.
It was only the Jews that were entrusted with the oracles of God which are the OT Scriptures.
What books did the “Jews reject large parts of what Jesus considered inspired-inerrant”?
Are you thinking of the apochrya of the OT?

justasking4
This is not entirely correct. Many Jews did. Not only the populace but some leaders. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea not to mention some Pharisees. See Acts 15:5 and John 8:31.

guanophore
But most did not, only a remnant of the Jews believed. Those that later canonized the Jewish Scriptures did not believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree. What are the conditions for something to be true and to be called Truth?

guanophore
Grace and Truth come from Jesus. That is why the Catholic Church teaches Truth, because the teachings are from Jesus.

What if you can’t find a teaching of the Catholic Church on the lips of Jesus?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
] "And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was Pope of Elder Rome, be with them cast out of the Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them,

guanophore
I don’t see the relevance of this. The Church has never claimed that individuals cannot sin. People who sin are separated from the Church by their sins. Peter sinned in behaving hypocritically. He repented of his sin, so he was not anathamatized.

My point in bring up Pope Honorius is that he was anathamatized in his capacity as a pope also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What is your criteria that you would use to determine if your church might have erred?

guanophore
I would consider this an arrogant position from which to proceed. If I thought something the Church teaches didn’t agree with the Bible, then I would begin from the position that I was deficient in my understanding. I would assume the Church is right, because she has Jesus as her Head, and the HS as her soul.

So no matter what facts etc are brought up that shows the church has erred in some way there is no way this could be?

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3407406]
My take is that Jewish leaders were more afraid of losing their culture, and their way of life to the Romans who would have persecuted them unmercifully if they appointed Jesus as leader. In essence they were more fearful of the Romans losing their identity and lifestyle as they knew than they were afraid of God. This just goes to show you how secularized and corrupt the Jewish leaders had become in essentially becoming “Rome” just to keep themselves in power.

Now tell me again why you want to trust the non-converted Jews with defining for you what scripture is???

For a number of reasons. Paul in Romans 3:1-2 says this about how God used the Jews in regards to the Scriptures:
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God..

It is the Jews alone who were entrusted with the Scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3407408]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I agree. What are the conditions for something to be true and to be called Truth?

CentralFLJames
You essentially ask the very same question Pilot did before he turned Christ over for crucifixion.

John 18:38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him. "

The answer is in John 18:37 ‘…I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.’

What truth what Jesus testifying to?

Th Catholic Church has consistently taught ONE TRUTH for 2,000 years.

What is this “ONE TRUTH” you speak of? Where has the church defined it?

There is NO OTHER CHURCH on the planet that can make that claim.

Sure they can. All churches believe they have the Truth.

Ironically though we were warned that eventually a legion of false teachers would appear to deceive man with utter false teaching and lies.

Good point. Howerver keep in mind where the false teachers and teachings would be found. 2 Peter 2:1-2 addresses this with clarity:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;

No church is immune from this.

The Catholic Church was present from the very beginning at the foot of the cross in the dutiful and loyal witness of St. John and St. Mary. Indeed “what is truth” when over 30,000 different Protestant sect teachings pop up like tares in the wheat 500 years ago shortly after Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church. Even a completly blind man can see this. Listen to what Jesus tells us through 2 Timothy 3-4:

‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers [ed: note plural] in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth…’

What does your church say this specifically this is? What is the “sound doctrine” that Paul is referring to here?

This sure sounds to be like the very same anti-Catholic/anti-truth people who want to have their cake and eat it to in the utterly false doctrine of “once saved always saved”. What heathen or pagan could ever resist a religion where they get a shot at immortal bliss while getting a free lunch ticket to commit every sin of the flesh they wanted while waiting to enter paradise? That even trumps Islam’s promise of 72 virgins in the hereafter…

I can see you really don’t have a good grasp of this doctrine. If a person claims to have made a profession of faith in Christ and they willfully contiune to live a sinful life then that is a good indication they were never “in Christ” to begin with. Romans 6:1-2

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

He gets in more specific about this in verses 11-15 when he writes:
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

Any Christian that comes to you and says it doesn’t matter how they live in sin God forgives them either is ignorant or not a true believer.

 

[sodak]

No church is immune from this.

That’s not what Jesus said.

Any Christian that comes to you and says it doesn’t matter how they live in sin God forgives them either is ignorant or not a true believer.

Baloney. People fall away all the time. I’ll do you one better. Any Christian that says it doesn’t matter that you are not a Catholic is not a true believer.

 

[guanophore]

If that is the case then why does Paul write in Colossians 3:1-3 in how to think?
3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Yes, indeed! However, without the Sacred Tradition, the knowledge of what "things"are above is lost. See, to the Apostles, that includes the souls of holy men and women who have gone on before us. This is how it came about that we reverence the saints who are in heaven. Their lives are eternally hidden with Christ, in God. We seek to be with them, and ask for their prayers.

In this passage he instructs the believers via this letter the Christians at Colosse how they are to think and what to strive for.
If you read further on he gets very specific about how they are personally to deal with sin and pursue Christ in very practical ways.

No one is saying that scripture is not practical an helpful for developing holiness. It was never meant to be the sum total of Christian instruction.

Other passages to look at would be Romans 12:1-2 which also deals with our minds and what we need to do.

Scripture is indeed helpful in training the mind in God consciousness.

i agree in part. However even with teachers in the church you will not always have a uniformity of teachings. Not all believe indentically.

The benefit that Catholics have is that the Teaching is identical all over the world, and there is uniformity across cultures.

Paul in Romans 3:1-2 makes his case for how important the Jews were and their place in God’s plan when he writes–What books did the “Jews reject large parts of what Jesus considered inspired-inerrant”?
Are you thinking of the apochrya of the OT?

The Saducees only accepted the Torah, and rejected the Psalms and Prophets as inspired by God. Other Jewish sects rejected the Deuterocanonical texts. The Church considers inspired all the books accepted by Jesus and the Apostles.

What if you can’t find a teaching of the Catholic Church on the lips of Jesus?

Such a Teaching does not exist. Jesus was clear that those who hear the words of His Teaching Authority hear His words.

My point in bring up Pope Honorius is that he was anathamatized in his capacity as a pope also.

Yes. God nowhere promises “once saved, always saved”. Everyone has free will, and can fall from Grace. all He promised is that the Church would not teach error.

So no matter what facts etc are brought up that shows the church has erred in some way there is no way this could be?

There are no facts that the Church has erred. The Church cannot err because she is Holy, she has Jesus as her head, and the HS as her soul. That which is divine cannot err. In accusing the Church of error, you are denying the Scripture which describes the Church as the Holy Bride of Jesus, spotless, and without blemish.

For a number of reasons. Paul in Romans 3:1-2 says this about how God used the Jews in regards to the Scriptures:
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God..

It is the Jews alone who were entrusted with the Scriptures.

This is a misinterpretation of the passage. The Sacred Oracles are the “speakings” of God. This refers to Sacred Tradition. Some of that Tradition was committed to Scripture. It is the Word of God they were given, not the “writings” of God. The Oracles (Words) of God are much larger than the written portion.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Just4asking: If that is the case then why does Paul write in Colossians 3:1-3 in how to think?
3:1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
In this passage he instructs the believers via this letter the Christians at Colosse how they are to think and what to strive for.
If you read further on he gets very specific about how they are personally to deal with sin and pursue Christ in very practical ways.

Other passages to look at would be Romans 12:1-2 which also deals with our minds and what we need to do.

I don’t understand how Catholics disagree with this? I must be missing your point.

From Just4asking: i agree in part. However even with teachers in the church you will not always have a uniformity of teachings. Not all believe indentically.

We will have people in the Church who will mis-teach. But that doesn’t mean that the teaching itself is incorrect.

From Just4asking: What if you can’t find a teaching of the Catholic Church on the lips of Jesus?

I don’t understand what you are asking?

From Just4asking: My point in bring up Pope Honorius is that he was anathamatized in his capacity as a pope also.

And he proves our point. As a person he was anathematized but can you find a single teaching which he declared infallible that the Church denies?

From Just4asking: So no matter what facts etc are brought up that shows the church has erred in some way there is no way this could be?

We have asked you to point out a single error of Teaching with which you believe is in error and your authority for such a declaration. You keep avoiding the question. What are you afraid of if you are right?

From Just4asking: What truth what Jesus testifying to?

That He is Truth, in essence God.

From just4asking: What is this “ONE TRUTH” you speak of? Where has the church defined it?

It is the unified Teaching of the Church as contained in the Full Deposit of the Faith.

From just4asking: Sure they can. All churches believe they have the Truth.

But only one can have it. The rest can only at best have portions of the Truth.

From just4asking: Good point. Howerver keep in mind where the false teachers and teachings would be found. 2 Peter 2:1-2 addresses this with clarity:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;

No church is immune from this.

The Catholic Church relies upon the promise of Christ that it is the Church ordained by Christ to be the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth and that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. We take our promises from Christ quite seriously.

From Just4asking: What does your church say this specifically this is? What is the “sound doctrine” that Paul is referring to here?

The Full Deposit of Faith contained within the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

From Just4asking: I can see you really don’t have a good grasp of this doctrine. If a person claims to have made a profession of faith in Christ and they willfully contiune to live a sinful life then that is a good indication they were never “in Christ” to begin with. Romans 6:1-2

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

He gets in more specific about this in verses 11-15 when he writes:
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

Any Christian that comes to you and says it doesn’t matter how they live in sin God forgives them either is ignorant or not a true believer.

And what do you believe is the eternal resting place of such a person?

 

[guanophore]

What is this “ONE TRUTH” you speak of? Where has the church defined it?

His name is Jesus, but He is far beyond any puny human “defininition”.

Sure they can. All churches believe they have the Truth.

Are they still claiming it after 2000 years?

Good point. Howerver keep in mind where the false teachers and teachings would be found. 2 Peter 2:1-2 addresses this with clarity:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned;

No church is immune from this.

You don’t have to toot your own horn, ja4. We all know you are here among us!

What does your church say this specifically this is? What is the “sound doctrine” that Paul is referring to here?

That which was handed down to us by the Apostles that has been preserved to this day.

I can see you really don’t have a good grasp of this doctrine. If a person claims to have made a profession of faith in Christ and they willfully contiune to live a sinful life then that is a good indication they were never “in Christ” to begin with. Romans 6:1-2

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?
2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

He gets in more specific about this in verses 11-15 when he writes:
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

Any Christian that comes to you and says it doesn’t matter how they live in sin God forgives them either is ignorant or not a true believer.

I think we do have an adequate “grasp” of this doctrine, ja4. It is not Biblical, and it is not Apostolic Teaching. Perhaps we should address that in another thread?

 

[justasking4]

sodak;3407742]

Originally Posted by justasking4
No church is immune from this.

sodak;
That’s not what Jesus said.

I know He said that the gates of hell would not previal against the church but that has nothing to do with the church being incapable of error.

justasking4
Any Christian that comes to you and says it doesn’t matter how they live in sin God forgives them either is ignorant or not a true believer.

sodak;
Baloney. People fall away all the time.

What does it mean to “fall away”?

I’ll do you one better. Any Christian that says it doesn’t matter that you are not a Catholic is not a true believer.

Huh? Where is this taught in Scripture?

 

[sodak]

I know He said that the gates of hell would not previal against the church but that has nothing to do with the church being incapable of error.

What does it then mean?

What does it mean to “fall away”?

Descend into sin or heresy.

Huh? Where is this taught in Scripture?

Who said it needs to be? If you look real close, it’s the verse right after “You need to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.”

 

[jmcrae]

I know He said that the gates of hell would not previal against the church but that has nothing to do with the church being incapable of error.

The “gates of Hell” is to be in a state of error. Basically, what you are saying is, “To be protected from being in the state of error has nothing to do with the church being incapable of error.”

What does it mean to “fall away”?

It’s what happened to Jimmy Swaggart and to Jimmy Bakker, when, at first, they were good Christians, preaching the Word of God faithfully, and then they lost their faith in God and committed sins.

Huh? Where is this taught in Scripture?

Everywhere that it uses the word “Katholikos” to refer to the Apostolic Church.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3408310]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I know He said that the gates of hell would not previal against the church but that has nothing to do with the church being incapable of error.

jmcrae
The “gates of Hell” is to be in a state of error.

Where is your support that it means this? Does it also mean that the church must be absolutely perfect in its teachings for it not to be in error?

Basically, what you are saying is, “To be protected from being in the state of error has nothing to do with the church being incapable of error.”

I do know the church has erred over the centuries. There are plenty of examples of that.

Quote:justasking4
What does it mean to “fall away”?

jmcrae
It’s what happened to Jimmy Swaggart and to Jimmy Bakker, when, at first, they were good Christians, preaching the Word of God faithfully, and then they lost their faith in God and committed sins.

i don’t their status today. Was there sin due to a rejection of God completely or something like Hebrews 12:1-2 where it says:
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Perhaps they took their eyes off Jesus.

Quote:justasking4
Huh? Where is this taught in Scripture?
jmcrae
Everywhere that it uses the word “Katholikos” to refer to the Apostolic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Where is your support that it means this? Does it also mean that the church must be absolutely perfect in its teachings for it not to be in error?

Does there have to be absolutely no arsenic in the tea, for it not to be poisonous?

“No error” means “no error.” You can’t have a certain amount of error (what quantity of error would be acceptable?) and then say that you are being protected by God from error.

I do know the church has erred over the centuries. There are plenty of examples of that.

Give one example of a moral or doctrinal statement of the Church that is “in error,” and show your evidence - don’t just make an assertion, but show with evidence that the Early Church could not have taught whatever it may be.

I don’t their status today. Was there sin due to a rejection of God completely or something like Hebrews 12:1-2 where it says:
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Perhaps they took their eyes off Jesus.

And if so, then they “fell away.” Hopefully, they got back up again and reconverted.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3408461]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where is your support that it means this? Does it also mean that the church must be absolutely perfect in its teachings for it not to be in error?

jmcrae
Does there have to be absolutely no arsenic in the tea, for it not to be poisonous?

“No error” means “no error.” You can’t have a certain amount of error (what quantity of error would be acceptable?) and then say that you are being protected by God from error.

What about individual leaders i.e. bishops and priests who may have erred in their writings?

Quote:justasking4
I do know the church has erred over the centuries. There are plenty of examples of that.

jmcrae
Give one example of a moral or doctrinal statement of the Church that is “in error,” and show your evidence - don’t just make an assertion, but show with evidence that the Early Church could not have taught whatever it may be.

Why limit ourselves just to moral or doctrinal statements? The early church did not teach the marian doctrines. Those came about much later.

Your church erred in the inquisitions, condemning Joan of Arc and Pope Honarius who was condemned as a heretic.