A compelling non-Catholic argument

[protestantman]

Israel bond itself to God through the covenant in exchange for the promise for great blessings. This restricted their collective free will (which is what submitting to authority is all about) to conform to God’s will but still gave them the latitude to exercise free will in all areas of life as long as it was consistent with God’s Law.

You keep evading my question. With more questions.

Let me repeat. By what scriptural authority do Protestants protest and seperate themselves from The Church and teach their own human doctrine?

James

We did not seperate, we were seperated. Or should I use the word excommunicated. Outside of that, we teach only the scriptures, by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

 

[protestantman]

Protestantman, I am very disappointed. I originally thought you were living in the Spirit and spoke well of you but it appears I just threw pearls at your feet for which you have no eyes to see and ears to hear. Your original tone appears to be just sheeps clothing. So what specifically is the prayer you say for me?

I gave you at least two chances to apologize for the slanderous lies that began with Peter de Rosa who also claims that Christ did not rise from the dead. You so hate the Catholic Church that you couldn’t even repudiate such a vile source just because he says things with which you agree.

A person who is of Christ will apologize for committing false witness. Your refusal says alot about your heart and its separation from Christ.

I chuckle at your feeling of persecution. You come to our house and spread lies and you expect to be received with welcoming arms.

Are you saying that the Catholic Chuch is a bad tree? Answer this question so that we can once and for all strip you of your sheeps clothing.

Well why did you use this hateful source? It is hard to the use as anything but motivated by hate. Expecially when you continue to repeat the accusations.

I guess you are saying the Catholic Church is a bad tree.

I only respond to this thread to make it known to all the vileness of your voice.

Titus: 1:15-16 “To the clean all things are clean, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean; in fact, both their minds and their consciences are tainted. They claim to know God, but by their deeds they deny him. They are vile and disobedient and unqualified for any good deed.”

I used those sources to show that History is meaningless. It can be reshaped and rewritten many times over, so that a desired point can be made. If you were watching my post, I said that I cared nothing for History, as it is irrelevant. Scripture is where my belief comes from, not History. I pray that you would be streangthened in your faith. I definately do not hate the Catholic church. The only thing I argue here is the Churches interpretation of scripture. I am not the one who can say if you are a bad tree. But I can say that many bad fruit have come from the catholic church. My point to using hate driven articles was to make a point that anyone can alter history. Therefore history can never be used as grounds to determine truth. So unless anyone was there with Peter or the other Popes, than can we please move away from History? Please understand that I do not stand behind Peter de Rosa’s claims. Nor do I with Hans Kung. I was not there, so how can I know the truth? Yet I was accused on this forum for saying that I cared nothing for the History concerning this matter.

 

[sodak]

I used those sources to show that History is meaningless. It can be reshaped and rewritten many times over, so that a desired point can be made. If you were watching my post, I said that I cared nothing for History, as it is irrelevant. Scripture is where my belief comes from, not History. I pray that you would be streangthened in your faith. I definately do not hate the Catholic church. The only thing I argue here is the Churches interpretation of scripture. I am not the one who can say if you are a bad tree. But I can say that many bad fruit have come from the catholic church. My point to using hate driven articles was to make a point that anyone can alter history. Therefore history can never be used as grounds to determine truth. So unless anyone was there with Peter or the other Popes, than can we please move away from History? Please understand that I do not stand behind Peter de Rosa’s claims. Nor do I with Hans Kung. I was not there, so how can I know the truth? Yet I was accused on this forum for saying that I cared nothing for the History concerning this matter.

I don’t believe you. You post hateful articles, then claim not to hate the Church. This is a Catholic forum, and you come into here spreading hate literature and calumny. That’s a sin, by the way.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[protestantman]

This is also a false conclusion. Many things of value come from people living in sin. Even the Caiaphus prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.

Then why does scripture disagree? It says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

Protestants bear fruit to the extent that they live according to the Teachings of Jesus, which are found most completely in the Catholic Church. To the extent that Teaching is rejected, they are improperly joined to the body.

This is not supported by scripture, so I will not argue it further.

As I said, there is ONLY ONE Church, and all who are members of Christ are members of his ONE BODY. Catholics are urged not to judge the eternal souls of others, and to focus on working out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Only God decides who is going to spend an eternity in hell, and only God can see the heart, and whether it is sinful or just.

And what is the ONE CHURCH?

No. To qualify as a heretic you would have to have known and believed the truth, then rejected it. Your faith can better be described as a product of heresy, since these heretical beliefs were passed on to you as true from the beginning.

So I support heresy? How is that any less than being the Heretic himself?

What does this mean, exactly?

Christ said that those who made themselves first, would be last. Those who are last will be made first. The Catholic Church puts itself on a pedastel of tradition. They say that their teaching is infallible. The Catholic Church has seated themselves first, at the head of the table.

I agree with you on this one. Why not stop arguing and rebuking, and make peace with us?

I am not here to argue. Although it has at some points become argumentative, this does not bring me joy. I merely ask for questions to my answers. I will however, continue to rebuke anything that is in contradiction with scripture. This is not done oout of hate, mind you, but out of love. Sometimes I may be missunderstood, as I have an odd way of making a point sometimes.(My little History adventure)
Why is it I that must make peace with you? It would seem that it should be mutual. I would not abandon my beliefs, but I would gladly accept you as a brother in Christ.

 

[Church_Militant]

We did not seperate, we were seperated. Or should I use the word excommunicated. Outside of that, we teach only the scriptures, by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

What “we”?

You weren’t there or even a part of the real “reformation”… You do not even hold the same beliefs that the three pillars of the reformation held. The fact is that you are actually some sort of modern post reformation step child and in fact you hold to new winds of doctrine that not only were not held by the early church, but (as I just said) weren’t even the same as the New Testament church.

As for your use of the gross anti-Catholic sources that you copied and pasted (without so much as a link acknowledging that it wasn’t yours!) all that really tells us is that you cannot be trusted to be honest.

 

[protestantman]

sodak:
We also do not force the belief of trinity on those who attend our services. Evidence for the Trinity is specifically spoken of in the Bible.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Revelations 19:13
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Revelations 19:13 says that the word is Jesus Christ. And John 1:1 says that the word was God. This is pretty straight forward.

 

[protestantman]

What “we”?

You weren’t there or even a part of the real “reformation”… You do not even hold the same beliefs that the three pillars of the reformation held. The fact is that you are actually some sort of modern post reformation step child and in fact you hold to new winds of doctrine that not only were not held by the early church, but (as I just said) weren’t even the same as the New Testament church.

As for your use of the gross anti-Catholic sources that you copied and pasted (without so much as a link acknowledging that it wasn’t yours!) all that really tells us is that you cannot be trusted to be honest.

No, I was not there, but if I chose to become a member of the Catholic Church, I could not. I would not be allowed, because I would not just throw my beliefs away for papal infallibility.

The copy and paste was merely to prove a point. I chose something specifically written by an anti-catholic, and then one from an ex catholic thologian. My point is that history is corrupt, and cannot be addressed to proclaim truth, no matter who wrote it. The only truth is the scripture. If I have offended some of you, and it appears I have, then I shall make it a formal apology. I apologize for using the works of Peter de Rosa and Hans Kung to make a point. I DO NOT HOLD THESE WRITINGS TO HAVE ANY BASIS FOR TRUTH.

 

[protestantman]

I can also admit that I was angered by the posts that made personal attacks at me. It is one thing for you to question my beliefs, but it is not right to make it personal. In my anger I returned the accusations in a manner that was not right. Please do forgive me on this, and please try to keep things from being so personal.

 

[ibkc]

protestantman, you said

  			Originally Posted by **protestantman** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3411051#post3411051) 				
  		* Therefore, to claim papal infallibility is a perversion of scripture.

What would you say to the suggestion that to not take Christ at His word in John 6 - to say that he was just speaking figuratively - is the greatest perversion of scripture of all?

 

[CentralFLJames]

We did not seperate, we were seperated. Or should I use the word excommunicated. Outside of that, we teach only the scriptures, by the authority of the Holy Spirit.

I thought you believed that scripture taught itself??? Why does scripture need you to teach?

It sounds to me like you and your friends (“we”) think that you are infallible and have some kind of organic authority onto yourselves. Given that you used hateful material and propaganda from an anti-Catholic web site I am afraid I don’t see any evidence that The Holy Spirit is really working in you. So, you might want to re-examine yourself a little more and see if you are not being used by God’s enemies to hurt The Church.

To others at large:
If this wild-west sort of scripture interpretation persists to its logical conclusion where everyone is walking around in public with their KJVs strapped down to their leg with hammer’s cocked I think we need some new public-interest safety legislation. It may very well be time to petition the legislature to start requiring a safe-handling course and require a license and background check at point of sale for everyone buying their bibles who insists on private interpretation. Joe Public and innocent bystanders are much too vulnerable to getting maimed by careless personal handling of scripture interpretation. It’s only a matter of time before the 30,000+ Protestant sects start laying down a cross fire of fundamentalist shoot-em up interpretation any time somone walks their dogma in public without a leash. The public right of way is bound to becoming dangerous. Society needs to licence carrying scripture in public and declaring shooting dogma an inhumane act.

James

 

[ibkc]

The copy and paste was merely to prove a point. I chose something specifically written by an anti-catholic, and then one from an ex catholic thologian.

Hans Kung is still Catholic, just FYI.

 

[Church_Militant]

Then why does scripture disagree? It says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

It also says not to judge, especially since God seems to have accepted, used, and appointed Peter to the position that he held. The fact that he was the chief of the is even evidenced by the fact that he is listed first in every list of the apostles, he is named first. That’s the way it was done at that time.

And what is the ONE CHURCH?

Here, let me spell it out for you in the original New Testament Greek.
Acts 9:31 ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο

“ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης” is translated as “the church throughout all” but it is literally Catholic Church.

So I support heresy? How is that any less than being the Heretic himself?

You buy into the errors of others.

Christ said that those who made themselves first, would be last. Those who are last will be made first. The Catholic Church puts itself on a pedastel of tradition. They say that their teaching is infallible. The Catholic Church has seated themselves first, at the head of the table.

According to you, but the truth is that you base that on a fundamental doctrinal error that teaches that the Bible is the sole authority, but the actual result of that is that you and every person who has a copy of a Bible actually sets themselves up as an infallible authority as they “interpret” what they read whether they really know what they are doing or not.

Result: Every manner of whacked out doctrine under the sun.

I am not here to argue.

I can’t tell…It seems that’s all you’ve done so far.

If your intent is to preach or evangelize Catholics away from our faith then you seem to be right straight outta luck.

Although it has at some points become argumentative, this does not bring me joy. I merely ask for questions to my answers.

Yeah, right… what was that long c&p from a rabid anti-Catholic site?

I will however, continue to rebuke anything that is in contradiction with scripture.

Recommend that you clean up your own beliefs before “rebuking” anything that anyone else believes. So far you appear to have bought into a-C propaganda hook, line, and sinker and are not wise or knowledgeable enough to discern the errors.

This is not done oout of hate, mind you, but out of love.

Spare me this. I and my Catholic brothers and sisters have heard that claptrap before and it always precedes the worst of rudeness and disrespect to our faith.

If that is your display of “love”, save it for someone dumb enough to believe that. I don’t generally go around grossly insulting people that I claim to love.

Sometimes I may be missunderstood, as I have an odd way of making a point sometimes.(My little History adventure)

An excuse…

  Why is it I that must make peace with you? It would seem that it should be mutual.

We started off at peace and you messed that up. Note that no one of us came looking for you on your forum to post trash talk about your beliefs.

I would not abandon my beliefs, but I would gladly accept you as a brother in Christ.

Again… I sure can’t tell…

Hans Kung is still Catholic, just FYI.

:yup:

 

[Church_Militant]

I used those sources to show that History is meaningless. It can be reshaped and rewritten many times over, so that a desired point can be made. If you were watching my post, I said that I cared nothing for History, as it is irrelevant. Scripture is where my belief comes from, not History.

This is a ridiculous thing to say.

If you say you reject history then you have no way to even verify the existence of Jesus.

I pray that you would be streangthened in your faith.

The quit badmouthing the Catholic faith and accept that we have good Biblical reasons for all that we believe, whether you understand it or not.

I definately do not hate the Catholic church.

Again… I can’t tell from your posts so far.

The only thing I argue here is the Churches interpretation of scripture.

That’s your problem though, not ours. The fact is that the Catholic Church has more scholarship and more accurate information as to what really is consistent with the original New Testament full gospel Christianity that you or anyone else within the last 500 years. On their bad day they are better qualified to teach Christian doctrine than any of the people pushing the new winds of errant doctrine.

I am not the one who can say if you are a bad tree. But I can say that many bad fruit have come from the catholic church.

Judging another man’s servant again…

My point to using hate driven articles was to make a point that anyone can alter history. Therefore history can never be used as grounds to determine truth.

This is an easy way out for a person too lazy to do their own homework and committed to discovering the fullness of truth.

So unless anyone was there with Peter or the other Popes, than can we please move away from History?

No… I think not.

Please understand that I do not stand behind Peter de Rosa’s claims.

Yeah… right…

Nor do I with Hans Kung. I was not there, so how can I know the truth? Yet I was accused on this forum for saying that I cared nothing for the History concerning this matter.

Which you did.

Either way, it proves that you are not being honest in your discussions. basically, you reject all history and play deceptive games with those who attempt to discuss with you.

I reject and rebuke that.

I don’t believe you. You post hateful articles, then claim not to hate the Church. This is a Catholic forum, and you come into here spreading hate literature and calumny. That’s a sin, by the way.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Not a bad idea at all.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Why do I care about history, when I know the Author.

Since the aspect of history came up, I have done some research.
Below I will show some of my findings. **All of these documents are Historically relevant. **They are concerning the issue of Papal Infallibility. Read them carefully, as they make it clear that based on the History of the Catholic Church, the idea of Papal Infallability is not even accepted by the majority of Popes. Especially none before Vatican 1.

(for brevity, I deleted the hateful words copied by Protestantman that were written by a person who based the information from a book by Peter de Rosa who also wrote a book that claimed the Resurrection is a hoax. But I left the link below- Orion)

Link to rest of long document.

I hope that this sufficiently satifies the historical requirements for this belief. The Idea of Papal infallibitity is neither Biblicaly nor Historically supported. The clearest evidence is that anyone who has stood against this, has either been excommunicated, killed, or Convinced to recant. The Roman Catholic Churches History is probably not brought up anymore, as it would contradict what they teach now.

I did not use any of those writings to establish my own belief on the matter. I do not hold Hate, Lies, or Calumny, as a basis for my arguments. As for the above, these are from my own belief. Despite that, there is still left a bleak history of the Catholic Church. Why did some popes recant in fear of Death? Stephen chose death over recanting, as did Peter, John, Paul, and many many others. Can you explain how Pope Liberius was just in his actions? He only recanted after the Emperor died. This seems like his faith was weaker than his fear.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Liberius

I used those sources to show that History is meaningless. It can be reshaped and rewritten many times over, so that a desired point can be made. If you were watching my post, I said that I cared nothing for History, as it is irrelevant. Scripture is where my belief comes from, not History. I pray that you would be streangthened in your faith. I definately do not hate the Catholic church. The only thing I argue here is the Churches interpretation of scripture. I am not the one who can say if you are a bad tree. But I can say that many bad fruit have come from the catholic church. My point to using hate driven articles was to make a point that anyone can alter history. Therefore history can never be used as grounds to determine truth. So unless anyone was there with Peter or the other Popes, than can we please move away from History? Please understand that I do not stand behind Peter de Rosa’s claims. Nor do I with Hans Kung. I was not there, so how can I know the truth? Yet I was accused on this forum for saying that I cared nothing for the History concerning this matter.

When you are caught in a lie and bearing false witness, the Christian thing to do is to apologize and not dissemble, triangulate, blame the messenger, or pretend you didn’t say it.

I can also admit that I was angered by the posts that made personal attacks at me. It is one thing for you to question my beliefs, but it is not right to make it personal. In my anger I returned the accusations in a manner that was not right. Please do forgive me on this, and please try to keep things from being so personal.

As much as I’d like to accept your apology, this is not an expression of sincere contrition. Don’t try to justify it. Just say what you said that was wrong and say you are sorry. As it says in James 5, you are to confess your sins to one another. Confession is good for the soul.

 

[elt1956]

I think you should probably read the chapter in question (and the surrounding chapters). In reality, Peter was neither first to speak at the “council of Jerusalem”, nor the last. That’s fact (at least if we trust scripture as reliable). Neither was he the one whose words were the model for the letter sent back to Antioch (that was James). Again, that’s fact. In fact, there’s nothing which explicitly shows he was in authority. There are many things that can be interpreted to imply that he did, but the same is true for James.

OnlyAmbrose> It is my hope that you will research thoroughly of your own accord, doing your best to set aside preconceptions and biases. We all have such biases (I was a baptist, and had, and even still do have, my own biases to overcome), and it’s important to realize that you cannot read into history your personal beliefs. It’s a hard thing to avoid, but I take it that you might be able to do so.

You will be in my prayers as you search for the truth. If you do happen to come across any explicit evidence supporting the primacy of Rome, I would ask that you share it with me. I’m still searching for the truth of such matters, and a smoking gun that says the authority continued on past Peter and into the Roman bishopric would help in my search. I’ve been searching, and cannot find such.

What I do find is that, as you’ve mentioned, people tend to discount as credible, bishops and other religious individuals as heretics because they were in disagreement with positions now held (or then held) by Rome. For instance, we’re supposed to reject the later works of Tertullian because he supposedly became a heretic. But how do we know that he wasn’t right? (I’m not saying that he actually was – I’m just saying we need more certainty than a list of evidence that is molded and shaped by current theological opinions.)

Oh, and there’s one more thing I’d mention to everyone – that someone cannot explain to you exactly what happened during the time in question does not automatically validate the RCC’s position on something. Whether the RCC is wrong or right is an independent issue, and should be approached accordingly.

Hello. Question here along the lines above. I would like clarification of who was the authoritative “head” of the Christian communities soon after Christ’s death. I have seen references that lead to the thought that most decisions were deferred to James, not Peter. Also that James was the “head” of the church in Jerusalem while Peter was head of the Christian communities in Rome. Thanks.

 

[Pons]

If you’re talking about the church at Jerusalem at a certain point in time, yes, James did lead it. But he got his authority as bishop or patriarch through Peter and the brothers James and John, who appointed him. James did lead the Jerusalem community after Peter and the others gave him the office, but Peter’s leadership role goes beyond the episcopacy.

I don’t remember exactly where I read it (and I’m not saying it’s all he did), but it’s probable that Peter acted as meditator (i.e. bridge-builder; pontifex maximus) between James and his ilk (“Judaizers”, big on Jewishness) and Paul — as in the Council. It may already be in this thread, but James gave disciplinary measures whereas Peter gave the teaching behind them. That’s the model followed by Popes and the other bishops today. Popes don’t do everything themselves.

 

[elt1956]

Protestantman, it is highly inappropriate for you to be receiving the Eucharist if you are not fully united with the Catholic church. Would you be able to vote in another country just by visiting there? No, of course not. You are not in union with the Catholic church, you haven’t received the Sacrament of Holy Communiion, and you have no business reaching Communion in our churches. If you truly want to be united with the Catholics, then go through the procedures to do so. Otherwise, we welcome you at our Masses, but not to receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord into your body. It’s very Biblical not to. Read 1 Corinthians 11:27.

And we wonder where division and arguments begin??? In an explanatory vein, the reason one cannot receive communion at a Catholic Mass is because of a difference of belief. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that “most?” Protestants believe that communion is only an act of rememberance of Christ’s words, “Do this in remembrance of me”, while the emphasis in the Catholic Church is on His words, " This IS my Body, This IS my Blood". Thus, through the actions of the Priest as a representative of Christ and the process of Transubstantiation, the bread and wine BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ. It is a Sacrament and article of faith, dogma and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas I don’t know that many Protestant’s believe in this in the same way.

 

[elt1956]

If you’re talking about the church at Jerusalem at a certain point in time, yes, James did lead it. But he got his authority as bishop or patriarch through Peter and the brothers James and John, who appointed him. James did lead the Jerusalem community after Peter and the others gave him the office, but Peter’s leadership role goes beyond the episcopacy.

I don’t remember exactly where I read it (and I’m not saying it’s all he did), but it’s probable that Peter acted as meditator (i.e. bridge-builder; pontifex maximus) between James and his ilk (“Judaizers”, big on Jewishness) and Paul — as in the Council. It may already be in this thread, but James gave disciplinary measures whereas Peter gave the teaching behind them. That’s the model followed by Popes and the other bishops today. Popes don’t do everything themselves.

If you could remember your references regarding this, I would really like to read them. I have read so much controversy about whether Peter was considered the head of the church and my memory is so hazy on sources, I would appreciate any help I can get. Thanks.

 

[Church_Militant]

We also do not force the belief of trinity on those who attend our services. Evidence for the Trinity is specifically spoken of in the Bible.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Revelations 19:13
13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

Revelations 19:13 says that the word is Jesus Christ. And John 1:1 says that the word was God. This is pretty straight forward.

That’s your problem…not ours.

If you fail to teach accurately then your judgement be on your own heads.

James 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.

 

[Church_Militant]

No, I was not there, but if I chose to become a member of the Catholic Church, I could not. I would not be allowed, because I would not just throw my beliefs away for papal infallibility.

As usual, the a-C attempts to argue that all Catholics accept all things without question or debate when in fact that is nowhere near the case. It is from these discussions that Catholics like me discover all the more reasons to hold to the infallibly defined doctrines of the church. Blind acceptance is nothing more than an a-C myth used to try to indict Catholic faith.

The copy and paste was merely to prove a point. I chose something specifically written by an anti-catholic, and then one from an ex catholic thologian. My point is that history is corrupt, and cannot be addressed to proclaim truth, no matter who wrote it. The only truth is the scripture.

This is nothing more than an anti-intellectual statement and in fact is not true. Accurate history is there, one just has to be honest and energetic enough to dig it out regardless of where it leads. This kind of thinking mandates that one check one’s God-given brain at the door of the church and accept (blindly, I might add!) whatever interpretation of scripture is presented by whoever is speaking from the pulpit. This is pretty much exactly what a-Cs try to allege against us Catholics.

If I have offended some of you, and it appears I have, then I shall make it a formal apology. I apologize for using the works of Peter de Rosa and Hans Kung to make a point. I DO NOT HOLD THESE WRITINGS TO HAVE ANY BASIS FOR TRUTH.

Note just how much vacillation it has taken to get this person to even offer this much of an apology.

Am I the only one who notes that he made no such statement when he posted the stuff to begin with? Also that he did not even bother to make it known that it was not his own material?

Apology accepted…for what it is worth…