Arguing with a Protestant?

[guanophore]

This verse does not destroy sola scriptura, because the traditions Paul is talking about are the "words of mouth and the letters"of he and the other Apostles.  The words and letters of the Apostles are scripture too.  2 Peter 3 : 15 and 16 "...just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters.  His letters contain some things which are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures..."  Peter here teaches that the letters of the Apostles are scripture.

I am curious if this verse influences your thinking at all. Do you disregard that the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth?

Yes, Peter did refer to Paul’s letters as scripture, but the scriptures were never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The Word of God transmitted through the liturgy and prayers are just as important and valid to be preserved. These are the elements of the Apostolic faith that Protestants have lost because they have not followed this commandment to preserve them together with the Scripture.

It is a modern myth that Sacred Tradition is all contained in Scripture. Even the Reformers never postulated such things. The further the factions drift from the Apostolic faith, the more bizarre the ideas.

As a protestant I would have no problem accepting the traditions of the RCC as athuritative if I could be convinced of Apostolic session, and those traditions didn't contridict scripture.

This is a good sign. It means that you are able to be pursuaded by the Truth. If you learn what the Church really teaches and believes, you will be able to separate the myths and falsehoods you may have been taught.

2 Timothy 3:16and17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Is this verse in 2 Timothy true or not?

Of course! It was written by Catholics, for Catholics.

And who is responsible for equipping the saints? In whose hands is that Scripture useful? Was each believer supposed to equip Himself, or was this duty entrusted by Jesus to anyone?

Eph 4:8-16
…
and he gave gifts to men." … 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12** to equip the saints for the work of ministry**, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

One Body, One Faith, under the authority of those appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

No I don’t think this tradition is sinful or wrong at all, what would be wrong is to bind or lose behaivior where scripture has not done so.

Do you have a scriptural reference for this principle?

What do you think Jesus gave the Apostles, in the form of binding and loosing?

Do you realize that this authority was functioning for decades before a word of the NT was ever written?

Do you think the Apostles understood that they should stick to what had not yet been written?

So IF an athurity in the church would say attendance to these special masses is mandatory, that would be wrong. A

Bible reference?

Would you say it would also be wrong for an authority in the Church to decide which books belonged in the Bible?

How about inventing the word “Trinity” to describe the Godhead?

Why don’t you observe the Sabbath on Saturday, like it says in the Bible?

so if there was a traditon that contradicted scripture that would be wrong like indulgences, which I take to contradict the teaching of scripture that the payment of Christ on the cross is sufficent to pay for the sins of a christian.

It is clear that you do not understand what an indulgence is.

For the most part I don’t think there is anything sinful with most of Catholic tradition, I just feel no compulsion to accept them when I don’t see them commened to me in scripture.

Does it say that everything must be commended to you in Scripture? If so, then how do you account for the examples above?

I’m not sure this observation about Mohler is right. As I understand it we protestants want scripture itself to guide our interpretation. Exegesis, finding the meaning of the text from within the text itself.

Yes, exegesis is important, and it is important to understand scripture in the light of all other Scripture. But scripture cannot “interpret” itself. Interpretation is a function of a person It requires intellect, discernment, and will. Literature, however Holy, does not have these qualities.

The Reformers invented this principle so that they could reject the interpretations of Scripture tht had been handed down from the Apostles through the Catholic Church. The Apostles taught that we are to read the Scripture in the light of Sacred Tradition. When the Scriptures are separated from the One Faith that produced them, their meaning becomes twisted.

2 Peter 3:16-18
There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Jesus appointed pastors and teachers to equip the saints, and in their hands, Scripture is useful for producing disciples fit for every good work. When people attempt to equip themselves, apart from the Gifts Jesus gave to the Church, fragmentation occurs.

 

[irisfromohio]

Help me out here. I can’t find the part of the Catechism you are quoting. Please give paragraph numbers.

The word, ecumenism, appears only twice in the Catechism. (I used the search engine at scborromeo.org.) Neither paragraph resembles what you are quoting! Again, help me out!

As for arguing with fellow Christians, if you mean fighting, you’re quite right. Getting up in someone’s face, and especially telling them that they are WRONG, only makes the other person go into defense mode, which means they will not hear anything you say.

But that is only one out of several definitions of argument. thefreedictionary.com/argument One of them is, “A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.”

In that sense of the word, we can argue all day long - as long as we have and use charity. Without charity, we’re just making noise. (See 1 Cor 13.) The greatest charity I can have for another person is to help them get to Heaven; and the surest road to Heaven is the Catholic Church. For that I can pray with all love, and for that I can do my feeble best in the arena of words.

I keep reading simple, eloquent, elegant, profound and extremely important posts in this thread. Now, I am not taking anything away from the people who post educated, Scripture based, Catechism quoted and intellectual talking points…from both sides of an “argument”. Many are new or junior members. Most should possibly be tapped to give some audio or video tutorials in how to exemplify real and everyday life Apologetics.. Ruthie again is among them and only one… Who’s with me

 

[DavidWJackson]

Help me out here. I can’t find the part of the Catechism you are quoting. Please give paragraph numbers.

The word, ecumenism, appears only twice in the Catechism. (I used the search engine at scborromeo.org.) Neither paragraph resembles what you are quoting! Again, help me out!

You are looking in a different book. Try pages 242 and 243 of John A. Hardon S.J. “The Catholic Catechism”.

As for arguing with fellow Christians, if you mean fighting, you’re quite right. Getting up in someone’s face, and especially telling them that they are WRONG, only makes the other person go into defense mode, which means they will not hear anything you say.

No. I explained this well, from off the top of my head, in my first post to this forrum #19. But I will pull from the above Catechism and restate it again here. “Catholics should avoid any words, judgments, or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do”.

But that is only one out of several definitions of argument. thefreedictionary.com/argument One of them is, “A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.”

“Catholics should avoid any words, judgments, or actions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do”.

In that sense of the word, we can argue all day long - as long as we have and use charity. Without charity, we’re just making noise. (See 1 Cor 13.) The greatest charity I can have for another person is to help them get to Heaven; and the surest road to Heaven is the Catholic Church. For that I can pray with all love, and for that I can do my feeble best in the arena of words.

“Catholics should avoid any words, judgments, or acttions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do”.

 

[Cranch]

“Catholics should avoid any words, judgments, or acttions that do not correspond to what other Christians believe or do”.

My first thought on reading this was to strongly disagree. So I looked up the original source. The reason why I disagree—if this Hardon quote is accurate—is it is an incomplete and potentially misleading paraphrase of a line from the Vatican II Decree On Ecumenism:

…avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult.—Unitatis Redintegratio 4§2
I won’t speak for Fr. Hardon, but I see Vatican II simply saying here “don’t misrepresent the beliefs of non-Catholic Christians.” The Decree focuses on emphasizing points of unity, however:

The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.—Unitatis Redintegratio 11§1

 

[4tytwo]

4tytwo;10104946:

Looks like you want a more than a 5 minute argument here. Perhaps we should make it a separate threat.

I didn’t want the 5 minute or the longer one lol !! I just didn’t understand the original point you were trying to drive home. The only other thing I will add to the longer argument you just provided here is another observation I have noticed over the years that you actually just strongly enforced. A lot if Protestant faiths not all but some allow for a vast amount of personal scriptural interpretation. Now you with all due respect are the first Protestant that has actually said to me at least in no uncertain terms that the wedding feast at Cana was a symbolic gesture to a deeper truth. No it was a miracle that not only the apostles saw and wrote in scripture what They witnessed but he said something important paraphrasing “they have runout of wine, what has this to do with me woman my time has not yet come” there were 6 stone water jugs that held 20-30 gallons in each " Mary told te head waiters to do as Jesus asked "… I don’t know this sounds like he made wine to me he also obeyed his mother Mary which is if utmost significance as well as raised marriage to the state of a sacrament. This is arguing with personal opinion not with Protestantism though it could be argued the later could influence the person.

Indeed as a protestant you will feel more at ease to challenge the inerpretation of the bible as you grow up more independent in that respect. but that’s just formality. in the end we have a common aim, to understand God and Jesus and to follow his teachings. I actually am probably hard to classify starting Lutheran currently attending the COE and enjoying all kinds of services from Methodists to evangelicals. Get a bit upset when they overdramatize things as being a scientist I believe in a God of Logic and he does not need miracles. That is magicians tricks that should make you sceptical about their motives.
The teaching is not about obedience but about faith in the holy spirit that allows you to solve any problem you are faced with in a way that is in harmony with God, Mary trusted God that Jesus would be able to solve the situation, Jesus trusted God that he would let the master of ceremonies see the truth and the Master of ceremonies trusted God that everyone would understand his words of wisdom.
Only a materialist would see it a miracle to turn water into wine, full of his own values that the finest wine would be the best drink one could ever have, surely even better if very expensive, and probably never drank the living water.
would you raise marriage to a sacrament by making it based on a lie or that say that if you follow Jesus you’d never run out of wine? get real my catholics and protestants. The miracle is that he made people realise the error of their ways as he was so bold to serve the wedding party the best water you could get as that was what you used for ritual cleansing and made them realise that it was more valuable than anything else you could drink. The Jews were drinking the living water and they would have recognised it. This was the cleanest water available as given to you from God. For heaven’s sake this man knew what he was doing, don’t discredit him but give him credit for his wisdom. It came straight from the source. Why would he want us to look for such mundane values or leave false impressions instead of the truth? Jesus never lied, even when facing the cross.

 

[rfournier103]

oops

 

[Azygos]

Hello man, I could not help but smile constantly while reading your response! You are funny, man! I wish I could keep this up pre-teen style of writing, man, but I can’t.

You referenced Acts 1:12 but the last place where Mary was mentioned was in fact Acts 1:14. Here is the verse, for your reference: “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” If Mary is the mother of God, according to you, why was she praying? And if, according to the Roman church, Mary is co-mediatrix, then why does 1 Timothy 2:5 say “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”? Luke didn’t make anything, please do not pass off traditions as facts. That’s “letting go of the commands of God and holding on to the traditions of men,” and it’s not my insight: Look at Mark 7:8 for the context of this sentence. And once again, read Exodus 20:4. And you would also find 1 Corinthians 12:2 interesting.

You had concerns about Mary praying… Let me ask you a Jesus style question.
If Jesus is God, according to you, then why did he pray?

You see if Mary praying somehow undermines her Birthing God and Raising God (Hence the Mother of God) then by your logic Jesus cannot be God because he also prayed.

Also you said Jesus is the mediator and that is true. We pray to Mary and ask her to pray for Us. Who does she pray to I wonder… His name is Jesus Christ!

 

[irisfromohio]

You had concerns about Mary praying… Let me ask you a Jesus style question.
If Jesus is God, according to you, then why did he pray?

You see if Mary praying somehow undermines her Birthing God and Raising God (Hence the Mother of God) then by your logic Jesus cannot be God because he also prayed.

Also you said Jesus is the mediator and that is true. We pray to Mary and ask her to pray for Us. Who does she pray to I wonder… His name is Jesus Christ!

I should cross stitch this response on a large parlor pillow and show it off to friends. Mostly Protestant and non Catholic friends

 

[Azygos]

I should cross stitch this response on a large parlor pillow and show it off to friends. Mostly Protestant and non Catholic friends

That is one of the best compliments I have had!
Thank You!

 

[Cranch]

I actually am probably hard to classify starting Lutheran currently attending the COE and enjoying all kinds of services from Methodists to evangelicals. Get a bit upset when they overdramatize things as being a scientist I believe in a God of Logic and he does not need miracles. That is magicians tricks that should make you sceptical about their motives.
The teaching is not about obedience but about faith in the holy spirit that allows you to solve any problem you are faced with in a way that is in harmony with God, Mary trusted God that Jesus would be able to solve the situation, Jesus trusted God that he would let the master of ceremonies see the truth and the Master of ceremonies trusted God that everyone would understand his words of wisdom.
Only a materialist would see it a miracle to turn water into wine, full of his own values that the finest wine would be the best drink one could ever have, surely even better if very expensive, and probably never drank the living water.
would you raise marriage to a sacrament by making it based on a lie or that say that if you follow Jesus you’d never run out of wine? get real my catholics and protestants. The miracle is that he made people realise the error of their ways as he was so bold to serve the wedding party the best water you could get as that was what you used for ritual cleansing and made them realise that it was more valuable than anything else you could drink. The Jews were drinking the living water and they would have recognised it. This was the cleanest water available as given to you from God. For heaven’s sake this man knew what he was doing, don’t discredit him but give him credit for his wisdom. It came straight from the source. Why would he want us to look for such mundane values or leave false impressions instead of the truth? Jesus never lied, even when facing the cross.

And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.—John 2:9–10Is St. John a liar? He says the water was made wine. Does the chief steward know his business? He saw it. He tasted it. He pronounced it the good wine. Your version of this story seems to be the magic trick because if it happened the way you say, the chief steward must have been hypnotized, given what he said to the bridegroom. It’s all well and good to tell people to get real, but when you’re alone on an island of idiosyncratic private interpretation it should give you pause. Catholic theology finds many spiritual truths in the wedding at Cana narrative without denying the miracle. I do not recognize in your Jesus—who you believe to be above manipulating “material” things—the Jesus who spat on the ground and made mud with his spittle to cure the blind man.

 

[DavidWJackson]

My first thought on reading this was to strongly disagree. So I looked up the original source. The reason why I disagree—if this Hardon quote is accurate—is it is an incomplete and potentially misleading paraphrase of a line from the Vatican II Decree On Ecumenism:

…avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult.—Unitatis Redintegratio 4§2
I won’t speak for Fr. Hardon, but I see Vatican II simply saying here “don’t misrepresent the beliefs of non-Catholic Christians.” The Decree focuses on emphasizing points of unity, however:

The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.—Unitatis Redintegratio 11§1

Fr. Hardon actually mirrors what this document says. Did you read the text I posted from Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Catechism, post #138? Did you read the secound paragraph of part 4 of the Catechism of our Church you referenced? Dialouge through meetings seated with competent experts from both Christian Churchs at the local level? Competent Expert I would think means: Bishop, Priest, Deacon and those with advanced Degrees most likly in Divenity, Holy Scripture, Theology and Missionary. And, work in that field of study.
I still believe the rest of us need to work on being openly agreeable with our Christian brothers and sisters in our truths. Acknowleging them as Christians working for our Lord. Inviting them along with us to Mass out of companionship and friendship. And continue cleaning up our own house as your referance also stated, which I also hold to of course. For I am Catholic, and that is Christ through His Church speaking to us. This is a better way for the lay to help build the Kingdom of God. Apologetics is for the Competent Expert.

 

[Cranch]

Fr. Hardon actually mirrors what this document says.

He paraphrased the advice in question. As I said.

Did you read the text I posted from Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Catechism, post #138?

That would be the text containing the paraphrase I quoted.

Did you read the secound paragraph of part 4 of the Catechism of our Church you referenced?

That would be the part containing the line I posted and labeled 4§2. Except it is not from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is from Unitatis Redintegratio, The Decree On Ecumenism from Vatican II.

Dialouge through meetings seated with competent experts from both Christian Churchs at the local level? Competent Expert I would think means: Bishop, Priest, Deacon and those with advanced Degrees most likly in Divenity, Holy Scripture, Theology and Missionary. And, work in that field of study.

The Decree does not use the term “at the local level” which you have inserted. The phrase “competent experts” is in reference to planned, organized meetings and is intended to be only one aspect of ecumenical activity. The decree clearly states in the prior paragraph:
The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.

I still believe the rest of us need to work on being openly agreeable with our Christian brothers and sisters in our truths. Acknowleging them as Christians working for our Lord. Inviting them along with us to Mass out of companionship and friendship. And continue cleaning up our own house as your referance also stated, which I also hold to of course. For I am Catholic, and that is Christ through His Church speaking to us. This is a better way for the lay to help build the Kingdom of God. Apologetics is for the Competent Expert.

I suppose it is up to you to decide which course of action might be best when a Protestant asks you why Catholics “worship” Mary or says some other equally uninformed thing.

And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled. But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.—1Peter 3:14–15

 

[guanophore]

Why would you ever think that Jesus created alcohol the first time he was going to do something on his way to change the world. Would you really think he needed to hoodwink people. Would he want to say “look I am Darren Brown and I can give you a religious experience”. You do Jesus a big discredit by declaring his first miracle was to change matter. He was here to change minds. As long as you believe in material miracles you are a materialist and are far from understanding what Jesus was about. What message would he have given us if he would have made alcohol in his first miracle. How could he ask us to take up our cross and follow him and what favour would he have done the couple by disguising the fact they could not afford to buy enough wine to have wedding celebrations, let alone that he was concerned most about them going away from the wedding with a lie in mind. How would the miracle have worked and on whom? Would you have thought Jesus needed to brag about “look hey see what I can do, I can turn wine into water” Jesus is not a Jim will fake it. He makes you face reality in a logic that is of God. What would you think would have been the best thing you could ever drink in the eyes of Jesus. If you are thinking of wine you are blind to his truth and trapped in material values. Look what he served, know why it was put where it was put and what they only could have put into those Jars. It was the living water. Why would you want to spoil it? Research the circumstances and see what happen if you put your trust in God
Jesus was logician, not a magician, he wanted us to see the truth. If it you need miracles to contort the logic that is God you indulge in unlimited power breaking his logic, not in the logic of his love.

I must say I am very surprised to read this. I thought Lutherans accepted the NT as the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

 

[Azygos]

Concerning 4tytwo post.

I wonder what his explanation is concerning Jesus healing the sick. I believe Jesus healed the sick so by his logic I must be a materialist. If it wasn’t so stupid it would almost be laughable. There are only a couple conclusions to all of this. One being Jesus is God and performed these mighty deeds including changing water into wine or Two Jesus was not God. Of course if Jesus is God then we are speaking now in spiritual terms that a naturalist doesn’t understand. I wouldn’t expect a naturalist to understand how and why God turned water into wine. Yet your claiming people as materialist when you are actually the materialist (Or Naturalist). Interesting…

 

[guanophore]

We are looking at actions and the common themes that those actions represent. Please look at Mark 7:8, in which Jesus said “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” Isn’t that what the Pharisees did centuries ago?

I agree that it is just as possible today to contradict the Word of God with the traditions of men as it was 2000 years ago.

 Isn't that what the Roman church has been doing and continues to do?

No, but it does seem that way to many who are ignorant.

How much of the Roman church's so-called "sacred tradition" is clearly in direct contradiction with what is contained in the Bible?

None, of course, because both are the Word of God. The Word of God cannot contradict itself.

 Look up Exodus 20:4, which is clear about not having statues or idols in any form. Then please read 2 Kings 18:4 which is the passage that describes why King Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent Moses made. That serpent is often used to justify the existence of idols in Catholic churches so why was it destroyed?

It appears that you have been wrongly informed about the nature of images and God’s commandments about creating them. Whatever Hezekiah believed after the fact, it was clear that God wanted that bronze serpent to be created, because God used it to heal the people. We are forbidden to worship any created thing. That does not equate to not having any created things.

What about 1 Timothy 2:5 which states there is one mediator between God and men? Where does Jesus come into the picture if the priests forgive sins and "mediate" between God and humans?

You have misunderstood the Scriptures, m3. The NT is a collection of writings penned by Cathoilcs, for Catholics. There is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic faith.

Jesus has mediated our eternal salvation no one else could do so. Priests are taken up into the One High Priest, and minister to the people in the person of Christ.

Peter said in Acts 1:20 that someone would take Judas’s place. Peter knew about the prophec y in Psalm 109:8. He specifically referenced the Psalm, and he referenced Judas, whose place had to be taken by someone who had been physically associated with Jesus and His disciples when He was here on earth. This meaning is clearly evident when the very next verse (#21) is read. If this is a justification for “apostolic succession,” it’s a very weak one.

The CC does not need to “justify” any of her doctrines using Scripture. All of her doctrines were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Our faith does not come out of the book. Rather, the book REFLECTS the faith of the Church that produced it.

Jesus’ disciples did miracles after He was no longer with them. Peter and John healed a lame man (Acts 3:1-8) and Paul brought a dead man back to life (Acts 20:10). Are there documented cases of Roman Catholic priests performing miracles?

Yes, of course! We call many of them “saints”.

There are also a number of non-Roman Catholic priests performing miracles. The greatest miracle occurs daily, and we refer to it as the consecration.

 Jesus' miracles were performed by Him and were witnessed by the general public, not just by His own disciples. It would help to know of miracles that are witnessed by entities other than the Roman Catholic church, which endorses its own miracles.

It is curious why you would be looking for such things. Obviously, there are many miracles of God that you already have rejected, such as the promise Jesus’ made to His Church that He would keep her in all Truth.

 Thanks for your response. I'm guessing only Roman Catholics can have idols all over their churches, bow down to them, and watch their bishops and cardinals lie down on the ground in front of Peter's tomb, and still claim not to worship idols.

No, actually, the Eastern Orthodox do the same. All those churches founded by Apostles have such practices. You may my not realize this but one cannot “worship” unless one’s will is involved. No matter what posture the body is in, if a person does not intend to worship, then it is not worship.

 In Acts 10:25-26, Cornelius fell down in front of Peter, and Peter stopped him from doing so. What justification would you like to provide for having statues in your churches?

We don’t require any “justification”.

The brazen serpent argument was put forward by none other than a Roman Catholic, and that same person extended the idea to provide evidence of a so-called "new economy of images," which is contained in the Catechism (#2131).

Yes, the bronze serpent is one example of an image commanded by God. The artwork on the Ark of the covenant is another.

But such images are not to be worshipped at any time, for any reason. Idolatry is a violation of God;s first commandment.

 

[Azygos]

Just a couple of bible verses to contemplate on.

1 Corinthians 2
14 Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.

Luke 11
24 "When an unclean spirit goes out of someone, it roams through arid regions searching for rest but, finding none, it says, ‘I shall return to my home from which I came.’

25 But upon returning, it finds it swept clean and put in order.

26 Then it goes and brings back seven other spirits more wicked than itself who move in and dwell there, and the last condition of that person is worse than the first."

 

[Azygos]

What I do not understand is why Protestants continue to accuse us after we explain ourselves. I continually hear them say that Mary is our Deity and that we worship statues. The Vatican is evil. The Popes eat babies and molest people. The Catholic Church is a front for the Illuminati and we are all going to hell. Oh yea don’t forget we must be blinded by the devil too.

I think protestants should read Revelations 12:10 concerning the Accuser.

What is really comical about this whole situation is that they took everything they know from Catholics (Including Scripture). If the Catholic Church is in error then so is the bible. If the bible is in error then so is your religion. If your religion is in error then so is your protestantism.

Since the Bible came from the Catholic Church they only have two options.
One, they say that we (The Catholic Church) were once the True Church and became corrupted. Simple Godly logic refutes this claim because the Truth is unchanging. So once the True Church always the True Church. Also taking into consideration these verses,
(Matt. 16:18,19)(Acts 20:28)(1 Timothy 3:15)
Choice number one debunked.

Second option is to say that We the followers are the Church of Christ or better yet, that ‘We are the Church of Christ’. to say that ‘We Are, The Church of God’ is actually an insult to God. If we, the Faithful in Christ are indeed the Church of Christ then I would be correct in saying that, ‘I am the Church of Christ’ as I am also a Faithful follower of Christ. You don’t hear people walking around saying, “I am the Church of Christ” Or “I am the Church of God.” That is because it’s just not logical. In fact scripture goes against that! Let me show you. (Note, they say this to try and prove that God didn’t establish a real Church)

Acts Of Apostles 14:22
22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

• If we are the Living Church of God then why did they have to Ordain Priest in every Church? If that’s the case then priest are ordained inside every Follower of Christ and that is just silly.

1 Corinthians 14:19
But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also; than ten thousand words in a tongue.

• So when Paul said we would rather speak five words in The Church did he mean inside of himself? No, it’s just not logical.

1 Corinthians 14
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

• How can a woman speak insides a bunch of followers? If the followers are the Church then she is not allowed to speak at all because she is the Church. It’s just not logical to say that “We Are the Church.”

The Correct saying is this, “We Are Members of the Church of God.”

*Choice number two also debunked. *

These are some things protestants should remember before they accuse the Catholic Church of being evil, corrupted, idolators, mary worshipers, devil worshipers, etc, etc…

If the Catholic Church is in error then so is the bible. If the bible is in error then so is your religion. If your religion is in error then so is your protestantism.

Ultimately if they could destroy our foundation they would essentially be destroying there own foundation. In fact they are stealing our foundation to attack our foundation. How is that for crazy. The Naturalist does the same thing when he uses immaterial laws of logic to make a case against God. He uses Gods immaterial laws to say there is nothing immaterial. Amazing.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

Touched a nerve, did I?

re. “where is x/y/z in the Bible?”

the line of questioning betrays more ignorance, than it discloses Truth.

I’ll simply reply with an old addage:

"The Church doesn’t teach what it teaches because it’s in the Bible…it’s in the Bible, because that’s what the Church always taught".

…and point out that had Yeshua sought to convey HIS Faith by reducing it to a book (or set of books)…he’d probably have written it (them) Himself, and handed it/them to the Apostles.

The bottom line–the Faith passed on by the Apostles to their successors, on down the line–comprised of oral, Sacred Tradition.

The contorion of the Faith that seeks to confine it to the Bible, and that every person capable of reading then discern their own personal interpretation of the Faith…

…comse to us from Sts Marty, Calvin, Zwingl, et. al.

As always, it comes down to the Church Fathers. vs. the Reformers.

As for the child sex abuse scandal–the Church which Yeshua founded, is comprised of human beings–sinners, one and all, top to bottom. No pretense, otherwise.

Even the Apostles were sinners, and imperfect–e.g.–Judas iscariot betratyed Yeshua for 30 sheckles; St. Peter denied Chirst 3x…St. Paul persecuted Christians…

Doesn’t serve to undo the Church that Yeshua founded–else you claim the Lord lied, whein he promised St. Peter that “…the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”.

No, you didn’t touch any nerve. But this is not the church that Jesus founded. The household of God has been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:20) Your contorted stories have been reverse-engineered to perpetuate lies.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

You have misunderstood the Scriptures, m3. The NT is a collection of writings penned by Cathoilcs, for Catholics. There is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic faith.

“Penned by Catholics, for Catholics”? What a joke! Who were the Aaronic priests, then? Who did the Roman church blame for the black plague? Look up the Catholic Encyclopedia and refer to “Heretics,” and see if you can answer why it is recommended that Roman Catholics should not visit certain physicians. You have misunderstood what you stand for, because by euphemistically re-writing history, your church has attempted to make itself look like it has done no wrong. If the external conflict wasn’t bad enough, read up on internal strife: the cadaver synod, and the time when there were three popes at once.