J
JSmitty2005
Guest
You believe the Bible “just because a church says it’s true.” That Church is the Catholic Church, and whether you like it or not, that’s where you got it from. You can’t use it against us, buddy, sorry.
- Status
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
God has never exclusively used Scripture to teach His people. For example, go here (posts #205-207) to see examples of Jewish oral Tradition that aren’t found in the Old Testament. Let me ask YOU something:
How can you hold as your final and only authority something that Christ didn’t give us? He left us with 12 men to lead His teaching Church, not a book.
P
Philthy
Guest
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches this also. The problem is that you seem to think that we know what you mean by “a true Christian”. We don’t. I mean, c’mon, try to be a little more thoughtful than saying “as far as I am concerned all true Christians are…Christian”. Do you really think anyone would disagree with the statement as it stands? No one would because all you have said is “all Christians are Christians” without qualifying what “true Christian” means as a distinct entity from, say, “false Christian”.
He differentiated his Apostles from everyone else. Any analogy beyond that is silly since there were no Christian divisions in his day, and the Church was not established until Pentecost. Your attempt to characterize selective intolerance as “un-Christlike” is invalid in this case.
Really? I think it is an honest assessment. To pretend that we are all one, holy and Apostolic while we all hold contrary opinions on basic matters of the faith, including the divinity of Christ - is an insult as well. There is a sense in which we are united - the term “brethren” captures that. There is a sense that we are not united - “separated” captures that. I don’t see the problem with the term - its, well, the adult the thing to do - recognize the situation and not simply pretend it doesnt exist so that we can all pretend that we are “united”.
Holier than thou braggard attitudes? Please provide a reference for any such statement. This, of course, would be an example of “bearing false witness” if, after I’ve now pointed this out to you, you fail to produce a Catholic Church document consistent with your characterization - and still harbor this resentment in your heart or continue to claim it.
Again, you’ll need to support such claims with something more than your feelings - I know they mean a lot to you, but forgive me if I don’t share your confidence in them.
Of course you would know this because you:
a) Know the sin that she committed - as testified by Scripture
b) Know that she is in hell - as testified by Scripture
c) Know it based on your feelings…and can thererfore confidently call her a sinner without fear of bearing false witness.
Yes, and in doing so you have inferred that one must be gullible to believe some of the stuff the Catholic Church teaches. Since I am a Catholic your opinion of me is that I am gullible enough to believe the Church. It doesnt require a quote - it requires a functioning analytical center in one’s brain and a knowledge of english.
Actually you can, through your speech, greatly influence what others believe - most especially about yourself and the value of what you have to say. It is not an absolute control, but it can definitely impact significantly what people believe…
Chill a bit dude-
Phil
E
Eden
Guest
It seems to me that you are worshipping the Bible more than you are worshipping God. When were we ever told that all we would need to know about Him is through a book? Jesus spent the last years of His life in ministry teaching His disciples so that they would continue His teachings after He was gone. He chose PEOPLE to transmit His message- the apostles. They and their successors (the bishops) are what you are referring to as “select few”. Jesus chose the first “select few”. Do you believe His model was in error and not of God? Also, Jesus did not spend the last years of His life writing the Bible. In fact, He did not write one word of the Bible. Why not? Show me where in the Bible it says it is the sole source of the Word of God. I’ll show you where you will find the model of “select few” in the Bible:
Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.
Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.
Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”
1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”).
2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.
2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.
2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are “ambassadors” for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ’s mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.
2 Cor. 10:6 – in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate those who disobey her.
2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.
1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.
2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him. 1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.
Much more here: scripturecatholic.com
E
Eden
Guest
Squeekster:
You may have already stated this elsewhere but I did not see it. To which denomination do you belong?
You may have already stated this elsewhere but I did not see it. To which denomination do you belong?
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Jesus Christ is the Word of God and the Catholic Church is the Church which He founded on Saint Peter.
M
mercygate
Guest
You can’t know for certain that the Bible is the Word of God without the Church. How do you know what books belong in the New Testament? Why don’t you accept the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, or the Didache as divinely inspired? Why didn’t God tell EVERYBODY which books belong in the New Testament, instead of a select few who all just happened to be Catholics?
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
I agree, we used to get all sorts of people coming to this forum for the sole reason of attacking the faith with a superiority complex. Such as starting their posts with, “peace be with you,” ending them with, “in love.” And even continuing posts with, “continuing by his grace.” As if somehow Catholics are inferior and don’t know Jesus. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif It is becuase of that reason I engaged in some heated month long debates, but now I’m burned out; which is why you don’t see me too often in this forum. But ever since Michael Francis started moderating this forum a sense of peace has returned, the peace that was felt when the forum first opened back in May of 2004.
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
I would also add that then the writings of the fathers shows that church “went apostate” long before the edic of Milan when all of these, “Catholic inventions” infiltrated the church. We see as early as the 100s from the didache and the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch the beliefs of: baptismal regeneration, the sacrifice of the mass, and the physical presence in the Eucharist, and the church is governed by the Bishops with the aid of the Deacons and Presbyters. St. Ireneaus oversaw Lyons in Gaul, that’s far away from Antioch, those"heresies" believed by a few seem to spread fast.
If what they wrote about what was not the belief held by the majority, then there would certainly be writings condemning these beliefs. And if the Catholic Church burnt these, then there would be evidence and historians would be mentioning it today. For anti-Catholics love to bring up how Catholics burnt bibles in the Middle Ages. (Although they’re taking it out of context, because those bibles were heretical in their translations.)
S
SemperJase
Guest
You mischaracterize the motivation of catholics. I don’t believe catholic teaching just because the church says it is true. Otherwise why would I believe the catholic church over, say, Mormonism? Joseph Smith claimed his testimony was true, but I don’t believe him.
No, its not that I’m gullible although it might make you feel better to think so. I’m also not naive enough to think that every word spoken by the creator of the universe is contained in the Bible. In fact, the bible tells us that not everything Jesus did was written down.
S
squeekster
Guest
If you don’t believe it because the Catholic church says it is true, then why do you believe it? If you didn’t get it from the Catholic church or some writings of mere men, where did it come from? If you don’t believe that every word spoken by God that we need for life, both here and eternally, is in the Bible, kindly show us the rest of it, with PROOF that it is from God.
And you are right. The Bible does tell is that everything Jesus did was not written down. The key word being DID. It does NOT say that everything that Jesus SAID or TAUGHT was not written down. Besides, even IF everything Jesus said wasn’t written down, and I have no doubt that He probably said things other than what are written in the Bible, the things that were important for all of mankind ARE in the Bible. If you believe otherwise, again, prove it.
M
montanaman
Guest
I think you’re misunderstanding what he’s saying. Catholics do NOT believe in some sort of secret knowledge or another deposit of Jesus’ teachings.
However, you’re going to need to prove this:
However, you’re going to need to prove this:
Since you’ve just posited an extra-biblical tradition, you’re going to need to show us why you put so much faith in it.
M
mercygate
Guest
Um. Language like, “Prove it!” witnesses to hostility. You may have reasons for your hostility, but I assure you that the Catholic view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition is not responsible for your negative experience. People in the Church might have been responsible. People outside the Church might have shown you a view of “Catholic” teaching which they believe to be Catholic but is not.
The Catholic position on this issue is that the Bible itself demonstrates that it contains assertions (like the Resurrection) that could not possibly be true on their face. History shows that the manuscript evidence for the NT is stronger, wider distributed, and more ancient in relation to its purported authorship than any other ancient text. So the “book” is not a fluke. History also shows that very early in the history of the Church, people were dying for what they believed – beliefs recorded in “the book.” One thing the book says, from the mouth of the one who claimed to be the Son of God (and if he wasn’t, he was either a lunatic or a liar), is that he would “build his church.” From the very earliest days, we have records of a church which is in historic unity with the Apostles commissioned according to the Book. There is no historic break. There is no doctrinal break. The Church that emerged on the day of Pentecost has no complete historic line as fully integral as that of the Catholic Church. Since on the Mount of the Ascension, Jesus promised the eleven to be “with you always” – we take him at his word. We are with the eleven, and he is with us.
D
davy39
Guest
I believe that some times, Catholics get tired of being attacked from all sides by Protestants, while we are being encouraged to be ecumenical. Defending the truths of our faith is not attacking. It is self defence. Especially nowadays, when Catholic church bashing is still fashionable.
S
Sherlock
Guest
How can you prove that the Bible is inspired? Because it says so? But why should you trust what it says—because it’s inspired? That’s circular thinking, and as such proves nothing.
Where did you get the Bible, squeekster? Did it drop out of heaven with a table of contents? No, the Church decided what was and was not going to be in it (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit). So it’s nice to know that you put so much trust in what the Catholic Church has compiled for you.
If it doesn’t matter what church one belongs to, then why does St. Paul send Timothy out to correct some “false teachings” that were already going on? Seems to me that that implies that there is a correct teaching, and St. Paul and Timothy know what it is. They didn’t shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, if a person is a true Christian, they are a Christian regardless of what church they go to. You have your truth and I have mine.”
Also, you contradict yourself: if, as you say, “if a person is a true Christian, they are a Christian regardless of what church they go to”, then how can you then say that “There are a number of beliefs of the Catholic church that are false”----how can that matter, if we’re all Christians anyway? And how can something be “false”, unless there is a truth to compare it to? I used to be a Protestant, and frankly many times the beliefs of one church I went to would contradict the next one I went to, and that church from the next, on and on (and on essential matters). If it doesn’t matter what church we go to, then truth doesn’t matter either.
Also, you wrote: “But I’ll go one step further. I will NEVER become a Catholic either.” That’s really very sad, and I feel sorry for you. Personally, I think a person needs to be willing to follow God wherever he leads him, and not decide beforehand for himself where he will and will not go. I seek to do God’s will, not mine. I hope you can learn to put God in control someday.
S
squeekster
Guest
One example is the alleged sinlessness of Mary. The Word of God says that ALL have sinned. The Catholic church says that isn’t true because Mary was sinless. Who is the liar here? The Catholic church or God? God can NOT sin and since Jesus is God, he is exempt from that verse. But there are NO OTHER exceptions listed. Therefore, either that verse is an outright LIE or the Catholic church is lying when they state that Mary was sinless.
Why would you “feel sorry” for me? By saying that you feel sorry for me because I refuse to become a Catholic, you are implying that there is no way I can know God. That idea is ludicrous.
So you automatically assume that I don’t know God, that I’m not willing to follow Him or that He isn’t in control of my life because I’m not a Catholic? What an arrogant opinion.
S
Sherlock
Guest
No, Catholics use sound reasoning to maintain that Mary was sinless. Go here: catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp
I take it, then, that you think that a baptized baby that dies is a sinner. How did he or she sin?
No, I feel sorry for you because YOU have decided where you will and will not go, and be or not be, instead of God. Nor did I say that there is no way for you to know God. I wouldn’t say it or imply it, because I don’t believe it.
I never said that you don’t know God—that’s just a straw-man, and a poor one at that. And YOU said you’re not willing to follow Him yourself, because, logically, if God were to lead you to the Catholic Church, you’ve already decided “nope, not gonna follow You there”. As for arrogance—any truth claim comes off that way, doesn’t it? Non-Christians could say the same of Jesus: “He thinks he’s God. What an arrogant opinion.” Whether or not relativists think that truth claims (and yes, the Catholic Church does claim to be the Church that Jesus founded) are “arrogant”, doesn’t address arguments for those claims. You’re not making a case for your relativism by simply calling any claim to truth “arrogant”.So you automatically assume that I don’t know God, that I’m not willing to follow Him or that He isn’t in control of my life because I’m not a Catholic? What an arrogant opinion.
At any rate, you didn’t answer my other questions. I’ll ask again: if it doesn’t matter what church we belong to (your claim), then how do you know that some Catholic teaching is false? It’s not like Catholics can’t provide reasons for what we believe, but, hey, you say it doesn’t matter anyway. If any church is OK, then there must not be any absolute truth because many churches contradict one another. If there’s no absolute truth, then you have no basis for saying that ANY teaching of the Catholic Church is false.
S
squeekster
Guest
“Sound reasoning”? It doesn’t matter what Catholic website you link to. If they claim that Mary was sinless, which is in direct opposition to the Word of God, they are calling God a liar. A person needs Jesus as Saviour because of sin. Mary herself said she needed a Saviour, something she would not have needed had she been sinless.
Speaking of sound reasoning. What kind of “sound reasoning” is it that requires that Mary be sinless all of her life or remain a virgin all of her life anyway?
As far as a baby sinning, babies are born with a sinful nature, which in itself is enough to send a person straight to Hell. But sin is not held against a person until they are capable of knowing right from wrong. Or as your linked Catholic website calls it “age of reason”. And if they never have the capability to distinguish right from wrong, God won’t count anything as sin against them.
E
Eden
Guest
squeekster said:
Squeekster, where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is to be the sole source of our Christian knowledge?
And if you were truly Bible-only why do you let preachers (men) tell you what the Bible says? Why can’t you just read it and know yourself? What does a preacher have to tell you that you don’t already know from reading the Bible alone?
More importantly, if the Bible were to be our only resource, don’t you think Jesus would have spent the last years of his life in ministry writing the Bible - which would have been directly from the hand of God - rather than teaching men to carry on His work orally and leaving it to later generations to compile the Word of God?
Why, why, why would Jesus not have written the Bible Himself if it were to be THE SOLE SOURCE of our Christian knowledge? Squeekster, could you please answer this question?
- Status