A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[Redbandito]

and you guys complain about the treatmet you receive at carm…

Don’t say “you guys” as if this guy is representative of our majority. Most of the Catholics treat most of the Protestants with a great deal of respect here.

 

[Redbandito]

geraldfff,

I believe you do Catholics a great disservice by being intentionally antagonistic towards our Christian brothers. Please refrain from such behavior. I am sure you did not intend to do harm, but mocking people is hardly seen as a sign of respect or Christian charity.

 

[Reformed1]

Don’t say “you guys” as if this guy is representative of our majority. Most of the Catholics treat most of the Protestants with a great deal of respect here.

Very true.

 

[Bishopite]

[JesusforMadrid;1812766]This sounds so nice. Would that it were true.

Well I’m only pointing to the obvious historical truth. I’ve been on both sides growing up Baptist; the church I attended split form another church because both sides couldn’t agree what type of music to play on Sunday.

The Catholics and Protestants are nearly identical in this respect, with one difference: When Catholics argue about what is truth both in Scripture and Tradition, one side labels the other side a “heretic”, then the “heretic” goes and starts another church such as the Lutheran Church,

All due deference, but that’s simply NOT true. When Catholics argue they either appeal to the Magisterium for clarification or the Pope jumps in (i.e, the Molinists and Jesuits/Thomists) and if the Pope chooses one side over the other and the one side disagrees without consenting to the Popes decision, that group is in schism which means it is choosing freely to no longer be in union with the church Jesus established and that’s another subject entirely.
Jesus did establish one visible and authoritative church (cf. Matthew 16 & 18). not a plethora of them that keep breaking off the other.

the Calvinist Church, the Hutterite Bretheren Church, and others. Protestants are also into namecalling at such time, but usually refrain from the use of the “heresy” label.

I would agree that some Catholics do call others heretics, however some Protestant cites that call each other “heretics” but simple name calling isn’t exactly fruitful nor respectful in our day.

But calling each other words are one thing, serious theological differences are another and truth is what most Catholics on this forum are seeking; those Catholics who name call aren’t reflective of the majority of commited and faithful Catholics.

 

[geraldffff]

geraldfff,

I believe you do Catholics a great disservice by being intentionally antagonistic towards our Christian brothers. Please refrain from such behavior. I am sure you did not intend to do harm, but mocking people is hardly seen as a sign of respect or Christian charity.

Your right! I apoligise for my infantile remark,no excuse .

 

[BrianH]

Right. Protestants and Catholics deal with controversial theological and moral issues distinctly different:

I disagree

When Protestants disagree with what Scripture teaches they simply break-up and start another church which then breaks up eventually and they start another church and the cycle continues…in which the inception was the reformation. Even Luther didn’t like what he was seeing in the reformations infancy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The fact that you have a hard time with it is irrelevent to everyone except yourself. The fact that you admit that it plays a part in your decision making is quite revealing. Let me help stretch your mind - from Scripture of course. Elizabeth said in reference to Mary:

“How is it that the MOTHER OF MY LORD…” you can look it up yourself. Now that is holy Scripture and Mary is addressed as the “Mother of my Lord”. Who is Elizabeth’s Lord? Jesus Christ. Who is Jesus Christ? He is the very same individual that Thomas described as “my Lord and my GOD”. Again, look it up. It is very simply impossible not to grant that Mary is the mother of God unless you wish to deny that Jesus is God. I know its really, really hard to think first and then type, but you might consider practicing it.
I dont expect a response - youve been ducking me for some time now after I pointed out that you seem to have difficulty admitting when you are wrong. I dont expect you to benefit from this - I write this for anyone who may have been remotely misled by your weak response above.

And I say for Mary to be the Mother of God she has to be God. Capiche?

I haven’t been ducking you. You are nothing but a liar. In fact, I specifically said to you that I admit when I am wrong. You tried to discredit my character in your next post. I’m not going to waste my time answering that one; you are hardly qualified to speak or make judgements on my character sir. As for weak responses, you will never be able to lay that charge against me. If you want to “duke it out” on the message boards you better have your mortal sins sorted out and your lucky charms in your hand because you…don’t…stand…a…chance. Course…I may just do the grown up thing and put you on ignore.

I know its really, really hard to think first and then type. The fact that you feel this way is irrelevant to anyone else but yourself. Now, stop making excuses for yourself and think first…then type.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I have read daddie’s posts and am to ignorant to make any sufficent reply so I thank you that do reply. One thing I have noticed just using common sense and reason. I can envision daddie as a rumpled haired 12 year old looking at his suffeling feet, winking and mumbling out of the side of his mouth when faced with a powerfull argument he cannot refute. LOL Peace

“I am too ignorant.”
Signed,
geraldfff

Actually, I am a 32 year old man who shaves my head. If you used common sense and reason you’d have realized that if you thought before you typed you wouldn’t appear to be an ignorant troll.

What are suffeling feet? How can I wink out the side of my mouth? I admit that when God told me to pray for my enemies, I fell victim to a powerful argument I could not refute. That has, however, been the only time. Try again junior.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So Protestant churches are unanimious in thought because they simply break off…
Have you ever read of the disputes among denominations at their general convention and while some do split, to suggest that even most do is inaccurate.

If Catholicism contends the early church was Catholic(big C)…and Catholics don’t start another church…how did we get a split in the first place?

The split(s) occurred when some groups abandoned true doctrine (this is heresy) or refused to acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church (this is schism). If they abandon Catholic doctrine, then they are not Catholic regardless of what they call themselves.

and these guys…
Churches claiming to be Catholic having broken communion with Rome
American Catholic Church in the United States
The Ancient Apostolic Communion
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Arian Catholic)
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
Catholic Apostolic National Church (U.S.)
Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA)
Celtic Catholic Church
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association
Free Catholic Church
Liberal Catholic Church
Mariavite Church
Old Catholic Church
Palmarian Catholic Church
Latin Episcopal Church of Brazil
Philippine Independent Church
Polish National Catholic Church
true Catholic Church
See also:Sedevacantism

Some of these groups are so tiny (The Old Catholic Church has 300 members nationwide?) that they are all but lost to history compared with nearly 1 Billion Catholics Worldwide.

But are you suggesting we should consider this list of <20 groups as equivalent to the 20,000+ Protestant denominations? I don’t think you really want to go there…

Not to mention the rather obvious fact that Catholics leave the Catholic church all the time…

Or, as I can’t help pointing out, that Protestants are coming into the Church in droves…led in many cases by their pastors who have come to realize the truth of Catholicism by their study of the Word of God.

You skipped that little fact.

 

[RNRobert]

When Protestants disagree with what Scripture teaches they simply break-up and start another church which then breaks up eventually and they start another church and the cycle continues…in which the inception was the reformation. Even Luther didn’t like what he was seeing in the reformations infancy.

Many Protestants do not recognize the teachings of groups like Mormons or the JWs, but these groups are merely following in the footsteps of the Protestant founders. Protestants claim that the Catholic Church introduced false doctrine and so were justified in breaking away. However, many 19th century sects (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) believed the Protestant churches were corrupt and introduced what they believed to be the “true” teachings of the Apostles. Who is to say they’re wrong? Or for all the quacks out there with an off-the-wall teaching or prophecy and a stack of Scripture quotes to “prove” it and who claim they got it right and everyone else got it wrong? http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e98/CaptainIncognito2006/smileys/thscatch.gif

 

[joshua_b]

You may have to wait for someone else to though. It seems that the resident Protestants are tired of answering it. I hope you find what you’re looking for.

For everyone following this thread,this roughly translates into “I can’t really do that because it isn’t really in there…” I’ve been looking for it feverishly in my Bible. I can’t find it anywhere, and I have seven “extra” books.

 

[BrianH]

The split(s) occurred when some groups abandoned true doctrine (this is heresy) or refused to acknowledge the Pope as head of the Church (this is schism). If they abandon Catholic doctrine, then they are not Catholic regardless of what they call themselves.

I am just not sure if you read what Bishopite wrote and then what I wrote…not sure that your response is…on-topic.

Some of these groups are so tiny (The Old Catholic Church has 300 members nationwide?) that they are all but lost to history compared with nearly 1 Billion Catholics Worldwide.

 

[BrianH]

Many Protestants do not recognize the teachings of groups like Mormons or the JWs, but these groups are merely following in the footsteps of the Protestant founders. Protestants claim that the Catholic Church introduced false doctrine and so were justified in breaking away. However, many 19th century sects (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.) believed the Protestant churches were corrupt and introduced what they believed to be the “true” teachings of the Apostles. Who is to say they’re wrong? Or for all the quacks out there with an off-the-wall teaching or prophecy and a stack of Scripture quotes to “prove” it and who claim they got it right and everyone else got it wrong? http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e98/CaptainIncognito2006/smileys/thscatch.gif

It all boils down to authority. Based upon scripture, Protestants reject most of the groups you mentioned.
Based upon tradition and scripture, other groups, like the Orthodox, reject(seems like a strong word but they do), the final authority of the Papacy.

 

[Bishopite]

I disagree

So Protestant churches are unanimious in thought because they simply break off…
Have you ever read of the disputes among denominations at their general convention and while some do split, to suggest that even most do is inaccurate.

Oh, come now. Why are there thousands of Protestant denominations? I never said Protestant churches are unanimous in thought? Where did you get that? I’ve lived it, seen it and the United Methodist are classic examples of how confrences don’t do much for unity but only fuel splits.

If Catholicism contends the early church was Catholic(big C)…and Catholics don’t start another church…how did we get a split in the first place?

Well, a read of Christian history shows the great schism in 1054 AD with the eastern bishops spliting off of the Catholic Church. And of course in 1517 Martin Luther began the reformation which Protestants are a product of. This is historical fact.

and these guys…
edit] Churches claiming to be Catholic having broken communion with Rome

 

[Bishopite]

BrianH;1813902]
I disagree

So Protestant churches are unanimious in thought because they simply break off…
Have you ever read of the disputes among denominations at their general convention and while some do split, to suggest that even most do is inaccurate.

Oh, come now. Why are there thousands of Protestant denominations? ** Do most of of them have conventions? No they don’t. ** I never said Protestant churches are “unanimous in thought”… Where did you get that? I’ve lived it, seen it for 38 years and the United Methodist are classic examples of how confrences don’t do much for unity but only fuel splits.

If Catholicism contends the early church was Catholic(big C)…and Catholics don’t start another church…how did we get a split in the first place?

People by their nature of rebellion as we see in the Old Testament people of Israel and of coure Adam and Eve, want to be in charge and do what they want and will whenever the wish and we all have a propensity toward that rebellious behavior; it’s what Catholicism calls concupiscience—the tendency to sin.

Also, a read of Christian history shows the great schism in 1054 AD with the eastern bishops spliting off of the Catholic church (the Papacy). And of course on Oct. 31, 1517 Martin Luther began the reformation which Protestants are a product of, since that time the sola Scriptura banner is often used to justify church splits; this is historical fact.

and these guys…
edit] Churches claiming to be Catholic having broken communion with Rome
American Catholic Church in the United States
The Ancient Apostolic Communion
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Arian Catholic)
Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
Catholic Apostolic National Church (U.S.)
Catholic Apostolic Church in North America (CACINA)
Celtic Catholic Church
Charismatic Episcopal Church
Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association
Free Catholic Church
Liberal Catholic Church
Mariavite Church
Old Catholic Church
Palmarian Catholic Church
Latin Episcopal Church of Brazil
Philippine Independent Church
Polish National Catholic Church
true Catholic Church
See also:Sedevacantism

But what you don’t understand is they want to be called
Catholic and use the name without the substance. Yet they want to believe what they want to believe even though it was NOT part of the original authoritative church founded by Christ. Protestants for the most part and mostly change their affiliation; that’s why my former Baptist church is now a “Bible church.” Those churches you give do claim to be Catholic without being in union with the Pope. ALL Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and the supposed “Catholic Churches” you’ve just posted ALL of them do NOT fall under the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope. That’s where unity falls as it was in the early church.

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, **yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

Not to mention the rather obvious fact that Catholics leave the Catholic church all the time…

Again, you don’t seem to understand that Catholics generally know the Magisterium (in union with the Pope) is the final authority and to think that Catholics break of of a particular parish in order to start an “new” church with differing theological, moral, or spiritual beliefs is the exception NOT the rule.
Thousands and I mean thousands of individual Protestant church thoughout the US alone have their pastor, church council, deacon board, elder committee or whatever name they use as their final authority (as they interpret Scripture) in their community church, therefore if some disagree they begin their own that follows not the early church but what the “Bible” teaches.**

 

[Philthy]

Sure, you bet. Never said they were big. Just pointing out the, what I thought was self evident, fact that Catholics do leave the Catholic church to start their own Catholic churches.
BH

 

[BrianH]

QUOTE=Bishopite;1816337]Oh, come now. Why are there thousands of Protestant denominations? ** Do most of of them have conventions? No they don’t. ** I never said Protestant churches are “unanimous in thought”… Where did you get that? I’ve lived it, seen it for 38 years and the United Methodist are classic examples of how confrences don’t do much for unity but only fuel splits.

You said:
“Right. Protestants and Catholics deal with controversial theological and moral issues distinctly different:”
I have pointed out that Catholics break off and start their own churches. Either they have, and I am right, or they have not, and you are. The very fact that not everyone is Catholic clearly shows I am correct. Does it not?

People by their nature of rebellion as we see in the Old Testament people of Israel and of coure Adam and Eve, want to be in charge and do what they want and will whenever the wish and we all have a propensity toward that rebellious behavior; it’s what Catholicism calls concupiscience—the tendency to sin.

ok

Also, a read of Christian history shows the great schism in 1054 AD with the eastern bishops spliting off of the Catholic church (the Papacy). And of course on Oct. 31, 1517 Martin Luther began the reformation which Protestants are a product of, since that time the sola Scriptura banner is often used to justify church splits; this is historical fact.

So Catholics(big C) did break off…according to you

But what you don’t understand is they want to be called
Catholic and use the name without the substance.

That is a Catholic problem. It is not for me to decide if they are Catholics or not. If they self identify as such I would refer to them as such. If you wish to maintain a monopoly on the word, it isnt working.

Yet they want to believe what they want to believe even though it was NOT part of the original authoritative church founded by Christ.

Internal Catholic squabble like the churches that broke off because they did not feel like Papal Infallibility(Polish I think) was part of the original church is once again a Catholic problem. You cannot expect us to agree since we operate under a different framework.

Protestants for the most part and mostly change their affiliation; that’s why my former Baptist church is now a “Bible church.”

I do not understand this.
Catholics and Protestants both change their individual affiliation, whole churches, more Protestants than Catholics that is to be sure.

Those churches you give do claim to be Catholic without being in union with the Pope. ALL Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and the supposed “Catholic Churches” you’ve just posted ALL of them do NOT fall under the authority of the Bishop of Rome—the Pope. That’s where unity falls as it was in the early church.

Of course I do not agree that the early church was under the Bishop of Rome, I think Clement and the Pope Victor incident, as I have discussed at length on other threads from the writings of Eusebius, show otherwise. If Sacred Tradition and Scripture, and supposed authority could not keep the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the Orthodox agreeing with the papacy, how can you expect we would also agree?

Cyprian of Carthage

We have discussed Cyprian before, Both versions of this text.
I think it is fairly obvious he would not have rewrote this unless he was displaced with its interpretation

Again, you don’t seem to understand that Catholics generally know the Magisterium (in union with the Pope) is the final authority and to think that Catholics break of of a particular parish in order to start an “new” church with differing theological, moral, or spiritual beliefs is the exception NOT the rule.

I know your theology fairly well. I agree more Catholics stay than leave. I have not said otherwise I dont think

Thousands and I mean thousands of individual Protestant church thoughout the US alone have their pastor, church council, deacon board, elder committee or whatever name they use as their final authority (as they interpret Scripture) in their community church, therefore if some disagree they begin their own that follows not the early church but what the “Bible” teaches.

I think the best evidence for what the early church taught is in the Bible. That is why 1st Clement and the Didache, also first century documents agree with the Bible so much.

 

[BrianH]

The point is that there is a thing called the Catholic Church which has been around since the very beginning and remains today very much in the same form, upholding the same doctrines it did from the beginning.

Well this is on many other threads. Are the doctrines of the Catholic church the same doctrines from the beginning of the church? Are the doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox? What about Torah believing Jews who believed in Christ(like the Church of Jerusalem which also claims Apostolic succession) prior to Paul?
But you said same form…in the sense I believe the new Mass is also similiar in “form” to the earliest Mass…I suppose you we agree largely.

The same cannot be said of the Reformation churches. They have changed doctrine and practice and not one of them even claims to be the “true” church.

You know that some do.

Is there a single “bible” church on the planet that even remotely represents the doctrine and practice of the Reformation churches of the 1500’s?

Nor do they wish too. They would be concerned with the early church as they find or interpret it from scripture.

I say no, and that is the fundamental difference between Protestant churches and the CC. When a Protestant group “breaks” off of a another Protestant group they have equal legitimacy with the original church and that original church doesnt even pretend to have the authority to claim that they are “schismatic” or heretical or in error.

Living in Kansas, I know a little about groups that “shun” people for leaving the fold, so I find your statement inaccurate.

When a brother is in error and it has been brought to their attention and they still do not repent, the bible tells us to take it to “the church”. How does that work in a system that has no church authority? It doesnt IMHO.

No church authority?? People are thrown out of fellowship all the time. I find this statement odd but perhaps I misunderstand you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am just not sure if you read what Bishopite wrote and then what I wrote…not sure that your response is…on-topic.

Sure, you bet. Never said they were big. Just pointing out the, what I thought was self evident, fact that Catholics do leave the Catholic church to start their own Catholic churches.

I do not see it has a matter of numbers. Of course there are more splinter groups in Protestant circles. It seemed Bishopite was speaking in absolutes about how Catholics do not respond like Protestants…but they do right? In as great as numbers, I am not sure, but the extent is not really germaine.

If I was contending that Protestants were not leaving, I could see why you said that. Of course I did not, so I am not sure why you are saying I skipped anything…
I know that Protestants become Catholics and vice versa. I was responding to what appears to be absolutist statements from Bishopite. I would never argue what he was saying from a Protestant perspective about how we do not leave churches or start new churches BOTH groups do that. Your point that
Catholicism does not consider them to be Catholics is an internal defintion. How and when Catholics determine who is still Catholic is of course irrelevent to me as who is really a United Methodist would be irrelevent to you.
Thanks
BH

 

[Bishopite]

BrianH;1816564]

You said:
“Right. Protestants and Catholics deal with controversial theological and moral issues distinctly different:”
I have pointed out that Catholics break off and start their own churches. Either they have, and I am right, or they have not, and you are. The very fact that not everyone is Catholic clearly shows I am correct. Does it not?

Perhaps I did sound dogmatic, even though I didn’t mean it that way, sorry. When I said “most” I meant most of-the-time, however in the strict sense it could mean merely one more than half, which would still make my statement correct

So Catholics(big C) did break off…according to you

Sure…Martin Luther and Calvin were Catholic weren’t they? On that point you did show what I neglected to consider. And yet do these self-proclaimed “Catholics” claim to be in union with the Pope? No they don’t and that’s whay makes them one with the Catholic Church, so they are either invisibily ignorant of their actions or in schism.
However, my statement still stands since “most” taken at face value means more than half and not every one of them, does it not?

That is a Catholic problem. It is not for me to decide if they are Catholics or not. If they self identify as such I would refer to them as such. If you wish to maintain a monopoly on the word, it isnt working.

Well, I disagree that it’s “not for you to decide” for we all need to seek the truth and history speaks for itself, so does the Catholic church. Catholicism only defends what is the reality of Christian salvific history. And…I’m not trying to convince you one way or another, the ohnus isn’t on Catholics to “prove” Catholicism, however, we all have the responsibility to seek the truth and live the truth God has given us through His grace.

Internal Catholic squabble like the churches that broke off because they did not feel like Papal Infallibility(Polish I think) was part of the original church is once again a Catholic problem. You cannot expect us to agree since we operate under a different framework.

Without sounding bragidocious and arrogant all schisms and breaks are “a Catholic problem” because we are the church that Christ established, research it for yourself and see

I do not understand this.
Catholics and Protestants both change their individual affiliation, whole churches, more Protestants than Catholics that is to be sure.

Sure, that’s true, however Protestants do so as a general rule not as the exception, but which church hasn’t changed it’s domgas? Answer…the Catholic church.

Of course I do not agree that the early church was under the Bishop of Rome, I think Clement and the Pope Victor incident, as I have discussed at length on other threads from the writings of Eusebius, show otherwise.

That subject would be another thread. However, Clement and Eusibius give much proof for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

If Sacred Tradition and Scripture, and supposed authority could not keep the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the Orthodox agreeing with the papacy, how can you expect we would also agree?

Because they broke from the Catholic church, which the Pope is it’s visible head.

We have discussed Cyprian before, Both versions of this text.
I think it is fairly obvious he would not have rewrote this unless he was displaced with its interpretation

Certainly that would be another thread, indeed. However, there is ample evidence in other church fathers.

I know your theology fairly well. I agree more Catholics stay than leave. I have not said otherwise I dont think

Sure, you have shown both side break, however spliting is a general rule within Protestantism although.

I think the best evidence for what the early church taught is in the Bible. That is why 1st Clement and the Didache, also first century documents agree with the Bible so much.

Well, yes, however, the Apostle’s creed is a classic example of our assertion of a “one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.”
History attests to our claim and Catholicism can’t ignore the truth of what it not only claims but what it is, whether or not it sounds boastful