A compelling non-Catholic argument

[Judewang]

Roman Catholicism (and Catholicism for that matter) is not just based on Scriptures or Doctrine. It is also based on Tradition. Aside from the Authority to which St. Peter was given AND the commission that St. Paul recieved from Christ (on the road to Damascus), both of them spilled their blood in Rome for Jesus Christ.

During the debates of the Council (I can’t recall exactly when…) the Anthiocians and Alexandrians were arguing about the divinity/humanity of Christ and both came to a standstill. Both turned to Rome for answers. I think this was when Rome was given the Authority. while it is true that there are other Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite that does not acknowledge Rome’s Authority - IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO COMMUNION BETWEEN THEM - There is Communion because Christ remains the HEAD. They are still in communion in the same way that the apostles were during the time of Christ on Earth. So what’s the big deal about authority? Who is in Authority? Rome or Jesus Christ? - Peter, Paul or Appolos?

If Catholicism did not take root in Rome, Constantine would not have become a Christian and whole of the Roman Empire at that time. Christ must have a reason to allow His Church to flourish in the midst of a Pagan Empire…

Taking these (and many more events, which were already mentioned earler) into account, was this not part of God’s plan to make Rome the Centre of Catholicism?

After Vatican 2, Rome opened up to many reforms - in the Liturgy, the used of multi lingual bibles, etc. But WHY is it that those who obeyed the Pope in Asia still identify themselves as Roman Catholics?

We must not be decieved by many of his “logical arguments”. He is like Arius. If he is in Asia, he would easily become a bishop of the Partriotic Church of China…But still, there are millions of Chinese Catholics who remain loyal to Rome (Vatican) even under severe persecution. WHY?
:twocents:

 

[guanophore]

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 agree that the original Reformers were excommunicated. However, the procedure for this is careful. The Church follows Jesus’ method, which is to approach the person, and try to show them their fault. If it works, the brother is won, if they refuse to listen then the Church is duty bound to make it clear that the brother has erred, so that those who wish to remain within the fold of Christ will have clarity.

I don’t think this is the case with the offspring of the Reformers, who were never within the boundaries of Aposotlic Teaching from the beginning.

The HS is not divisive. The HS was given by Jesus to guide the Apostles into all truth. Jesus was given “all authority” which He passed on to His Apostles, and they to their successors. The HS desires unity, not division. All those who are led by the HS will be led to the Authority that Jesus appointed.

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.

This is a very unscriptural attitude!

Scripture is where my belief comes from, not History.

The two were never meant to be separated. Separating them from one another causes division and misunderstanding.

I definately do not hate the Catholic church.

Who could tell?

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.

You are right, of course, but your method of showing this has resulted in participating in other people’s sins. The Catholic Church wrote, preserved, and promulgated the scripture, so the Catholic Church is the most qualified to interpret it. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. Scripture makes the most sense when it is interpreted in context.

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.

History is important, protestantman. I think in your heart you know this, and that God is calling you to examine your faith in the light of history. If you do this, you will find that your history is Catholic. Perhaps this is scary. These things really did happen in time, and God has ordained time, entered time,and expressed himself historically. I realize it takes a lot of trust to take the word of people who were present, but this is what God has asked us to do.

 

[protestantman]

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

James

No. I have not said that. When I read scripture, the Holy Spirit will often interpret scripture to me. Also, when I am listening to someone teach, the Holy Spirit allows me to understand what is being taught. Sometimes the Holy Spirit choose to reveal certain truths through the teaching of the word as aposed to the reading of the word.

 

[protestantman]

Hans Kung is still Catholic, just FYI.

Thank you. I saw that he had been fired as the head of theology. I guess that I jumped to conclusions. I apologize.

 

[sodak]

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.

Thank you! Ditto!!!

It constantly amazes me that as I see more and more attacks on the Church (which all spring from Satan, in my opinion), the more and more clear it is to me that the Catholic Church is truly the pillar and foundation of Truth. It’s a source of continuing amazement to me how God works.

It also amazes me how transparent these attempts to subvert our faith can be. They all tend to follow the same pattern, as if they come from the same source - what a coincidence.

Seriously, look at the methods of misdirection employed, you can almost predict what the next series of responses will be. I am also amused at the lack of answers to analytical questions. Most answers are often questions that employ further misdirection. I generally refuse to respond after one or two occurances of this.

I often struggle with how far to take them, a sound refutation being good, but after a while, ending up wrestling with a pig, not good.

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?

That’s because he endorses it. He’s only denying it now to try and salvage some respectability/credibility. Too late.

 

[protestantman]

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.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.

I am not a member of this Church. So I must not be saved.

You buy into the errors of others.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 can’t tell…It seems that’s all you’ve done so far.

I am absolutely fallible. I have not claimed otherwise. This is kinda what Im talking about when I said personal attacks. You have made an assumption about my faith that is not true, and then you poke a stick at it.

If your intent is to preach or evangelize Catholics away from our faith then you seem to be right straight outta luck.Yeah, right… what was that long c&p from a rabid anti-Catholic site? 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.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.An excuse…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.Again… I sure can’t tell…

I have no intent to convert anyone. I did not create any excuse, I was merely saying that its difficult to understand my posts. Forums take away the aspect of my body language. I did apologize for the A-C copy-and Paste. No one seemed to understand that I was being sarcastic, therefore it was my fualt that you took it the wrong way. Again I apologize, would you Forgive me or no?

 

[guanophore]

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

Fruit is another matter. Jesus is the vine,and we are the branches. Unless we have our life in HIm, we cannot bear fruit. God uses many sources to accomplish His ultimate good. Some of these sources are evil. Have you not heard that God can write straight with crooked lines?

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

Jesus did not say “I will build my churches”. He only built One Church,a nd He only has One Body. That, my brother, is scriptural.

And what is the ONE CHURCH?

It is the one started by Jesus, and founded one the Apostles and Prophets, Himself as the cornerstone. The signs of the True Church is that it is One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic.

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

It is most likely that, if you do support heresy, you do so in ignorance. I know, I did this myself for many years. It is not the same as being a heretic because heresy is willful rebellion against the truth. Most modern protestants have been reared in heresy unknowingly, so they can’t really qualify. They espouse Teachings that are not Apostolic, but they don’t know it,because they never learned the Apostolic Teachings.

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.

This is not true. The Catholic Church has been obedient to the Apostolic commandment to keep the Traditions. This does not put them on a pedestal. Obedient servants, when they have done what is commanded, are to say “we have only done that which is our duty”.

The Church is not the source of the infalliblity. Infallibility can only come from God. It is Jesus who promised that He would send the Spirit to guide the Apostles into all truth. Is their believing it arrogant? I guess I can see your point. I find it arrogant when Protestants talk about “assurance of salvation”.

Jesus chose the Apostles, and they chose theri successors. They are seated where God put them. I am confused why you see this as “the head of the table”. Jesus is the Head of the church, and the duty of the disciples is to wash the feet of others.

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.

You have posted a great deal of anti-Catholic material, and you have been judged according to you deeds. Perhaps, if it brings you no joy, you might consider a different method of dialog? Can you understand why I might think it was odd that you would come to a Catholic Answers Forum with your answers already in mind, asking for questions? Or did you misspeak your intentions?

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)

Ends don’t justify the means, protestantman. Do you have any idea where that Scripture came from?

  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.

I doubt that you will make peace with Catholics, since Catholicism is not a Bible Based religion. Why are you here?

 

[justasking4]

SCALCO;3411245]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where is the “chair of Moses” used in the writings of the apostles (NT) as a basis for infalliblity?
If you look at Paul’s description of church structure in Ephesians and I Timothy for example he never appeals to a chair of Moses or of Peter.

It is one thing to have an authority in the church (protestants would agree with this) but it is another to claim this authority is also infallible.

SCALCO;
It was said that the word “infallible” was not in scripture. I’m only saying the concept is there.

The Pharisee’s had legitimate teaching authority otherwise it would not have been said to “do and observe all things whatsover they tell you”. The people would not be told to do and observe error. The teaching authority was infallible.

We do know that the Pharisees did teach error even though they may have thought of themeselves as infallible. This same principle would apply to church leaders and teachers. It applies to popes and protestant ministers at all times.

 

[protestantman]

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.

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.

I did confess. The rest was not an excuse. I WAS WRONG. Saying that my posts were missunderstood, DO NOT EXCUSE THAT I OFFENDED YOU. I just felt I owed you a more clear view of my intentions

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3413280]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.
What were the three pillars of the reformation?

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.

This is also true of your church. No one in the NT church or even the church for the 1st three centuries held to the marian doctrines or celibate leadership.

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.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Jesus is the Head of the Church. Always has been,and always will be. There was no Apostolic or bishopric presence in Rome for quite some time. The early church was centered in the East, The Apostles stayed in Jerusalem until they were scattered, and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. If you think that all the Apostles were not in communion and agreement with one another, then you don’t understand history any better than protestantman!

 

[mikeledes]

The Protestant Reformation and Protestantism in general is not free of bad fruit. Let’s not forget that Martin Luther advocated violence against the peasants in the Peasant’s Revolt - peasants that were inspired by his teachings - and that he advocated violence against Jews. Let’s not forget that John Calvin burned Michael Servetus and that Calvin’s Geneva was not a paragon of religious tolerance. Let’s not forget the religious persecution of Anabaptsist by both Lutherans and Calvinists. Let’s not forget the Anabaptist atrocities in Munster, Germany. Let’s not forget the religious persecution that occurred in Calvinist/ Puritan Massachussetts and the infamous Salem witch trials.

And if we want to judge according to bad fruit, how about the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion that has been the result of the Protestant reformation? Within its first three decades of existence, Protestantism splintered into all kinds of contradictory sects and factions (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, etc.). God is not the author of this confusion.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[protestantman]

I agree that the original Reformers were excommunicated. However, the procedure for this is careful. The Church follows Jesus’ method, which is to approach the person, and try to show them their fault. If it works, the brother is won, if they refuse to listen then the Church is duty bound to make it clear that the brother has erred, so that those who wish to remain within the fold of Christ will have clarity.

My point is that my seperation was not one that was willing. In order for me to rejoin the Catholic church, I would have to accept certain things that I do not believe. I would never be allowed to take communion because I do not agree with the True Presence in the Eucharist.

This is a very unscriptural attitude!

No, it is sola scriptura.

The two were never meant to be separated. Separating them from one another causes division and misunderstanding.

Prove it to me in scripture.

Who could tell?

I guess forgiveness here is out of the question. I should probably note that.
Luke 17
1Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3So watch yourselves.
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. 4If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.”

You are right, of course, but your method of showing this has resulted in participating in other people’s sins. The Catholic Church wrote, preserved, and promulgated the scripture, so the Catholic Church is the most qualified to interpret it. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. Scripture makes the most sense when it is interpreted in context.

For which I apologized. The Bible sas that scripture ONLY makes sense when the Holy Spirit makes the true interpretation made known. This is where all sound teaching begins. If you read a book and do not understand it, do you go to the author, or to his biggest fan?

History is important, protestantman. I think in your heart you know this, and that God is calling you to examine your faith in the light of history. If you do this, you will find that your history is Catholic. Perhaps this is scary. These things really did happen in time, and God has ordained time, entered time,and expressed himself historically. I realize it takes a lot of trust to take the word of people who were present, but this is what God has asked us to do.

The Bible is complete. So the only History that concerns my faith is the 66 books of History that I already have. Outside of faith, history is a way to learn from other peoples mistakes.

 

[scylla]

But no Christian would agree with you more than about 500 years ago, because then we had 73 books.
I even have a King James Bible that is 150 years old that has 73 books. So for the majority of Christians it really isn’t 66 books for the faith, but 73 books. Why would the Holy Spirit lead us to division, wouldn’t you see an increasing unity if we were supposed to based of Sola Scriptura?
Which is the infallible interpretation? If there is none, then we can believe whatever we want.

And if it is just core beliefs then it really doesn’t matter if there are 66 or 73 books.

This line of thinking makes no sense to me.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[mikeledes]

The Bible is complete. So the only History that concerns my faith is the 66 books of History that I already have. Outside of faith, history is a way to learn from other peoples mistakes.

And those “66” books fell from heaven neatly bound? History provides context. And even with the Bible, Protestants can’t even figure out what it means.

God bless,
Michael

 

[protestantman]

Jesus chose the Apostles, and they chose theri successors. They are seated where God put them. I am confused why you see this as “the head of the table”. Jesus is the Head of the church, and the duty of the disciples is to wash the feet of others.

And what is the symbology of washing the feet of others?

You have posted a great deal of anti-Catholic material, and you have been judged according to you deeds. Perhaps, if it brings you no joy, you might consider a different method of dialog? Can you understand why I might think it was odd that you would come to a Catholic Answers Forum with your answers already in mind, asking for questions? Or did you misspeak your intentions?

I am not here to convert or to be converted. I do believe that I should understand your faith more. My intentions are that I would be streangthend in some way here. It is important for me to understand your faith if I need to speak of it in the future. It is also my intention that you would also grow. This is however dependant on you and I cannot force it. My biggest intention is more fellowship between the active members of the Body of Christ. In spite of the fact that sometimes I offend, my intention is still the same.

Ends don’t justify the means, protestantman. Do you have any idea where that Scripture came from?

I doubt that you will make peace with Catholics, since Catholicism is not a Bible Based religion. Why are you here?

 

[Orionthehunter]

I did confess. The rest was not an excuse. I WAS WRONG. Saying that my posts were missunderstood, DO NOT EXCUSE THAT I OFFENDED YOU. I just felt I owed you a more clear view of my intentions

I am having a hard time understanding what you are apologizing for. Can you be specific?

 

[protestantman]

The Protestant Reformation and Protestantism in general is not free of bad fruit. Let’s not forget that Martin Luther advocated violence against the peasants in the Peasant’s Revolt - peasants that were inspired by his teachings - and that he advocated violence against Jews. Let’s not forget that John Calvin burned Michael Servetus and that Calvin’s Geneva was not a paragon of religious tolerance. Let’s not forget the religious persecution of Anabaptsist by both Lutherans and Calvinists. Let’s not forget the Anabaptist atrocities in Munster, Germany. Let’s not forget the religious persecution that occurred in Calvinist/ Puritan Massachussetts and the infamous Salem witch trials.

And if we want to judge according to bad fruit, how about the bad fruit of doctrinal confusion that has been the result of the Protestant reformation? Within its first three decades of existence, Protestantism splintered into all kinds of contradictory sects and factions (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, etc.). God is not the author of this confusion.

God Bless,
Michael

Yet in all of this, we never said that we were infallible.

 

[mikeledes]

For which I apologized. The Bible sas that scripture ONLY makes sense when the Holy Spirit makes the true interpretation made known. This is where all sound teaching begins. If you read a book and do not understand it, do you go to the author, or to his biggest fan?

Whether they like it or not, Protestants turn to the author’s biggest fan for understanding - Martin Luther (Lutherans), Wesley (Methodists, Nazarenes, Holiness, Pentecostals, etc. ), John Calvin (Reformed, Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, etc. ), Dispensationalists (John Nelson Darby) etc.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[guanophore]

My point is that my seperation was not one that was willing.

And my point is that you cannot have been separated from something you were never a part of in the first place, It is clear from your posts that you have never understood Catholic Teaching. You have never been educated in the Apostolic Teachings. You are separated to the extent that you have never been properly joined in the beginning.

order for me to rejoin the Catholic church, I would have to accept certain things that I do not believe. I would never be allowed to take communion because I do not agree with the True Presence in the Eucharist.

Ok. so, what brings you here?

No, it is sola scriptura.

That’s silly. Scripture is all about history. It is the story of history from God’s point of view.

Prove it to me in scripture.

The purpose of scripture is not “proofs”. It is for the bulding up of the believer. Scripture was created when the HS inspired men (Catholics, in the case of the NT) to write what God wanted to document. That scripture was never meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it. That is why the Traditions and the Writings are held on the same level in scripture.

I guess forgiveness here is out of the question. I should probably note that.

I am perfectly happy to forgive you. However, be mindful that true repentance involves a change of behavior. Everyone who has spoken to you about your behavior will be watching closely to see if there is a metanoia.

For which I apologized.

Yes, I saw that.

The Bible says that scripture ONLY makes sense when the Holy Spirit makes the true interpretation made known. This is where all sound teaching begins. If you read a book and do not understand it, do you go to the author, or to his biggest fan?

The NT is authored by Catholics. The HS worked through Catholics to write. The writing was not meant to be separated from the Catholic faith that it represents.

The Bible is complete. So the only History that concerns my faith is the 66 books of History that I already have. Outside of faith, history is a way to learn from other peoples mistakes.

If you are using a 66 book bible, then yours is incomplete. The Bible was never meant to be the Sole rule of faith. Otherwise, Jesus would have written books instead of starting a Church.