Catechism vs Scripture

[JesusOnlyWay]

JesusOnlyWay

THE CHURCH
Mt 16:18-19 - upon this rock I will build my Church
Mt 18:17 - if he refuses to listen even to the Church…
Mt 28:18-20 - go baptize and teach all nations
~(infant baptism? “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). (so the infant believes? Peter, led by the Holy Spirit, said: “Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) (so the infant did repent?) To practice baptism before there is faith and repentance is to pervert the gospel. Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9). When one practices infant baptism he is going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).
Mk 16:15-16 - go to whole world and proclaim gospel (man’s gospel not God)
Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me; rejects you, rejects me.
~“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites.” --Jesus Christ Matthew 15:3, 6, 7
Jn 14:16, 26 - Holy Spirit with you always, teach/remind you of everything (is really the Holy Spirit u talking about here?)
Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth. (so i pray it does)
1Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. (Christ is the Church)

THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST
Col 1:18 - He is the head of the body, the church.
(you pope is the head according to your teachings, you even call the priest and popes FATHER. (John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.)
The Pope is the Head of the Church

RCC “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (#882, p. 254)
Jesus is the Head of the Church

God did not appoint Korol Wojtyla (John Paul II) to be the universal power over the whole Church. The Bible says the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH..." -Eph. 5:23

RCC The Pope is the Supreme Pastor and Teacher

“The Roman Pontiff…as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…” (#891, p. 256)
The Holy Ghost is the Supreme Teacher

RCC The Pope’s position as “supreme pastor and teacher” is null and void, for the Bible says this position is already filled by someone else, and He will abide forever. Thus, there is no need to elevate Korol Wojtyla to take over the job that is reserved for the Holy Spirit alone.

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
--John 14:26

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH..."
-John 16:13

"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you FOR EVER;"
--John 14:16

RCC The Pope has Ultimate Power Over Every Soul

“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (#937, p.267)

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (#882, p. 254)
A Great Christian is a Servant

(a) The disciples questioned among themselves who would be the greatest leader and Jesus told them that the greatest are the biggest servants. Jesus and John the Baptist were quite unlike Korol the pope with his big fancy hats and white royal attire and "power which he can ALWAYS exercise UNHINDERED (one aspect of a cult–a charismatic leader who tells followers what to do.)

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Matthew 20:25-28

(b) Korol Wojtyla, the current pope, allows himself to be called “Holy Father”. This term is found ONCE in the entire Bible. It is in the garden of Gethsemane and Jesus is praying to God the Father:

...Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:11

Romanists call the pope God!!! And Korol accepts it–even expects it!!!

(c) To take the name “Holy” father, is to try to steal God’s glory and take a title that belongs to God alone. God is exceeding angry about this situation.

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for THOU ONLY ARE HOLY..."
--Rev. 15:4

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and MY GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER..."
--Isa. 42:8

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
Exodus 34:14

 

[JesusOnlyWay]

PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
PRIMACY OF PETER
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

**The Claim and Boast to have the Keys of the Apostle Peter
Popedom: Its Nature and Purpose Part II: **

A holdover of medieval tyranny, the Papacy is the bulwark and foundation of the Church of Rome. It also is the pride and joy of devoted Catholics, giving them, they are assured, a direct link to Jesus Christ. And in these latter days, it appears that the world has rekindled its love of the Papacy. Against the voices of Scripture, history and reason, the Papacy declares its Church to be founded on the Apostle Peter alone, stating that he was the first bishop of Rome thus bequeathing all of his authority to subsequent Popes and Bishops. This is the lynch pin of Roman Catholicism. Officially the Church of Rome states,

“The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church….This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”[1]

The whole Roman Catholic structure is based on three false presuppositions:

1. That the text of Matthew 16:16-20 means that Peter was the foundation of the Church; that the Church was built on him;
2. That Peter went to Rome and was the first bishop in Rome;
3. That Peter’s successors are the bishops of Rome under the primacy of the Pope.

(It is worth mentioning here, that the list of Popes concocted by Rome is a fable. In its humble beginning, the church at Rome was guided by a plurality of elders, and not one single bishop. Then throughout its latter history, as two, even three, concurrent Popes vied for the throne, intrigue and deceit crowned the victor.)
Presupposition 1: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church, i.e. foundation of His Church.

“And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” (Matthew 16:16-20).

Here we are taught that whatever contemporaries apprehended Christ to be, plainly the disciples had a distinct knowledge of Him, expressed without hesitation by Peter on their behalf. The Lord attributes this intuitive knowledge that He was “the Christ” (Anointed-Messiah) and “the Son of the Living God” (Co-eternal with the Father and therefore likewise God) to be a revelation from His Father in heaven. It is this revelation, the Lord declared, that would become the rock, or foundation stone, upon which He would build His Church. This cannot be argued against, as it is the very concluding subject of the Lord’s charge to the disciples, “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” To hold the view that Peter himself is the rock is to deliberately pervert the plain sense of the Lord’s own words. To infer that the Church was built upon a mere man, and not upon God’s revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, is to insult Christ’s doctrine and corrupt God’s Word. Peter could be the foundation for nothing, being called “Satan,”[2] or adversary, by the Lord Himself, and later, formally rebuke by the Apostle Paul for compromising the Gospel message.[3]

      The Holy Spirit confirmed the true meaning of the verse by having it written in Greek.  The word for Peter in Greek is petros.  It is masculine in gender and signifies a piece of rock, larger than a stone.  In contrast, the word for rock in Greek is petra.  It is feminine in gender, describing bedrock, massive in size, and immovable.  The Church was thus founded upon a massive bedrock, not a mere chip of granite.  That bedrock is the God-given revelation by the Father in heaven.  Congruent with this revelation is the distinct commission given to Peter in verse 19.  “Unto thee”, that is, to Peter personally, was given the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.”  This prophetic declaration of the Lord was literally fulfilled when Peter was made the first instrument of opening the same revelation to the Jews, “God hath made that same Jesus...both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), and to the Gentiles, (Acts 10:34-44).  The power of the keys was concerning this same revelation of the Person of Christ, actuated by the initial proclamation of this revelation to the Jews and to the Gentiles and was fulfilled by the Apostle Peter, and by him alone.  Succession to this prophetic commission cannot be countenanced, since there was but one first opening of the kingdom for the Jews as for the Gentiles.  The second part of verse 19 was a commission for the responsibility of binding and loosening.  This is concerning Church discipline and was given as well to the other Apostles, as is seen in Matthew 18:18.  The whole focus, therefore, of the Matthew 16:16-20 text is on the divinity of Jesus as “the Son of the living God,” and His role as Messiah or Christ, this is the rock on which the Church is built.

COPY & PASTED? YES! BUT STILL THE CONTENT IS VALID

 

[JesusOnlyWay]

The Preposterous claims for a Pontiff Christ

The Roman Catholic Church abuses Matthew 16:16-20, twisting it to say that Peter, as first Pope, had the divine attribute of infallibility and that he also is the Christ, having the title of “the true vicar of Christ.”[4] What is such absurdity but understanding the Lord’s words to mean that Peter was also “the Son of the living God” and “the Christ”. “Nay!” Rome will say, “We claim not such.” But logic will endure no other path for their folly. She may not have worded it thus, but reasoned understanding of her doctrine does. To take the doctrine of Jesus being “the Son of the living God” and “the Christ” and to apply it to Peter and his self-styled successors, the Roman Pontiffs, is at once, a most ludicrous and horrendous assumption of the offices of the Lord. This is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church does. Further, she not only claims the divine attribute of infallibility for her Pope, her equivalent to being “the Son of the living God”, she also decrees that the Pope is rightly called “Most Holy,”[5] and the “Holy Father”[6], usurping the very title of the first person of the Trinity.

Christ’s power and the Pontiff Christ’s power

Jesus as the Christ has full, supreme, and universal power. This prerogative is His alone and any pretension by another is heinous and despicable. Yet the Church of Rome does not blush to claim the same power which is solely Christ’s, for her Pope, “[T]he Roman Pontiff…as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”[7] Consequent to Christ Jesus being the very Son of God is the necessity for every human creature to be entirely subject to Him in faith and practice. This is what Rome also holds for her Supreme Pontiff, the Pope.

“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[8]

The very fullness of grace and truth belongs to Christ Jesus, who by nature is Divine. “Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” the Apostle John proclaims, “and of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.” Believers receive grace for grace but the very fountain - the very fullness of grace and truth - belongs to Christ Jesus alone. All that went before Christ Jesus was but typical and in representation, and all that comes after Him is but a reflection of the glory that is His alone.

      The Pontiff’s lust for control is not satiated by usurping supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, for he alleges further that the Church, his Papal domain, has been allotted the very fullness of grace and truth.  “…[T]he very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”[9] is the official wording of Catholic dogma which settles the issue, and none may contest.  Well might the Pharisees have chided our Lord, “Who can forgives sins but God . . . and the Roman Catholic Church!”  The Pontiff Christ has willed it so - “There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive.”[10]



      Outrageous and pretentious as these claims are, the Pontiff goes further still, claiming the power to judge in the temporal sphere, even those who hold the highest civil office in a state.  Present Catholic law asserts without apology, “It is the right of the Roman Pontiff himself alone to judge…those who hold the highest civil office in a state....”[11]  This is in antipathy with Christ who declared emphatically “my kingdom is not of this world.”  There was another that claimed the kingdoms of the world were his to do with as he pleased; we would do well to dismiss Papal pretensions with Christ’s words - “Get thee hence, Satan!”[12]  The end result of the Church of Rome’s interpretation concerning what Christ said to Peter is the creation of a Pontiff Christ who is also claimed to be “The Holy Father”, with inerrant infallible teaching authority, and power, and that over all creatures in both spiritual and temporal realms.  Such an absurd office was foretold by the Apostle Paul when he prophesied,  “The son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”[13]  In place of “the Christ, the Son of the living God” has been erected the Pontiff Christ, the son of perdition.  The Papacy at its core office and institutional essence, professes to be an entire substitute for the true Christ and His work.  It must therefore be identified and denounced in accordance with Holy Scripture as the seat of Antichrist.



      Presupposition 1, that the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church, is not only a proven lie, but also the superstructure of infallible Pontiff Christs, with full, supreme, and universal power reigning sovereignly, is shown to be the age old pretense of Satan.  This is the Antichrist as represented in Revelation 17:4-5, as seated in Babylon, the spiritual seat of arrogance, oppression, and pride.

 

[JesusOnlyWay]

Presupposition 2. That Peter went to Rome and was the first bishop in Rome

The Scripture is utterly silent about the Apostle Peter going to Rome. His visits to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea and Antioch were carefully recorded. But there is simply no mention made of his going to Rome, which is essential to establish the Roman Catholic position. Certainly the Holy Spirit would not have passed over an event so significant and essential. In his letter to the Romans the Apostle Paul offers no salutation to Peter, as he greets many in the Church at Rome. The same Apostle Paul, being at Rome in the reign of Emperor Nero, never once mentions Peter in any of his letters written from Rome to the churches and to Timothy, although he does remember very many others who were with him in the city. While these two Roman Catholic presuppositions are conjectural, they are not the fabric on which faith is based, which is the Written Word of the Lord. The second presupposition of the Roman Catholic Church is therefore a deception, pure and simple.

Presupposition 3: That Peter’s successors are the bishops of Rome under the primacy of the Pope.

In Scripture there is no mention of successors to Peter or the Apostles. The criteria for apostleship are given in Acts 1:21-22. The position of the Apostles was unique to them and to Paul, all directly chosen by Christ Jesus with no hint of succession. In the New Testament, the Apostles appointed elders and deacons, and not a line of Apostles.[14]

      Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic Church attempts to defend her position in the name of personal succession from the Apostles.  But if we are constrained to conceive an “apostolic succession”, then the true successors of the Apostles are those who continue “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”[15]  If that doctrinal foundation is destroyed, speak not of “apostles” but rather of “apostates”.  “Apostolic succession” without apostolic doctrine is a fraud.  The real roots of the Papacy are those of the Roman Emperor and not the Lord Christ Jesus.  The Lord commanded, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so.”[16]  Christ absolutely proscribed all domination in his kingdom.  The same condemnation of worldly ways was repeated by the Apostle Peter, “Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.”[17]  The Roman Catholic Church is not the successor to St Peter, but rather to the Roman Empire, as her hierarchical and totalitarian control demonstrate.

Conclusion

In the book of Revelation the Apostle John portrays the fourth, or ten-horned beast as representing the Roman Empire, and so the angel interprets it. The Papacy belongs to the second or ecclesiastical stage of the Roman Empire. In Chapter 17, this ten-horned beast bears a mystical woman, dressed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold, precious stones, and pearls, a harlot, and the mother of harlots and abominations. She is the guilty seducer of kings, the cruel persecutor of saints, intoxicated with the blood of the saints and of the martyrs of Jesus. We strive in vain seeking fulfillment in any but the Pontiff’s Rome. She is the only Church that is also a City, a Civil State and that sits also on the Seven Hills.[18] Her official colors are scarlet and purple.[19] For 605 years the fires of her Inquisition scorched every country in Europe. Such years of cruelty and torture bespeak her and none else. She has made war with the saints, overcome them, worn them out, and would have totally crushed and annihilated them, but for the sustaining hand of the Lord upon them. History corresponds to prophecy as deep calls to deep. Throughout history here has been only one apostate Mistress of the world; the one Babylon the great, the one City is that is also a Harlot.

      The Papacy is about to have John Paul II retire or die, so that a new head may reign on which she can continue to seduce the religious world.  Now is not the time for furtive whispers, but rather shouts from housetops ascribing to her, “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH”.  The Pontiff’s power, however, is also temporal and political with ambassadors, civil concordats, with civil rights and power in real estate, education, medicine, and commerce, menacing the very political freedom of a Nation.[20]  Believing on Christ and believing on the Pontiff Christ are antithetic, and incompatible positions.  Wherever is found an “altar” instead of a communion table, a “priest” instead of a preacher, ceremonies instead of sound doctrine, sacraments instead of saving grace, traditions instead of the Written Word of God, this is not in the Church of the living God but the tangled, twisted web of the Pontiff.  And when this Harlot announces to the world that the Pontiff’s throne is vacant and awaits election of a new Pope by her cardinals, it is but to fill Satan’s seat.

“Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.”[21]

Those persons or nations submitting themselves to her and her Pontiff Christ, know neither life nor freedom, for only in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, is found freedom and Eternal life. Believe on Him and Him alone “and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”[22] but rather expose the Pontiff Christ for that which he is, “the son of perdition”[23] and the woman who rides on him to be none other than “that that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”[24] ¨

 

[CWBetts]

WHere did you copy nad poaste this claptrap from? I Suggest you read Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid which hndily debunks every syllable of your long, and largely unconvincing, treatise.

 

[adamjthompson]

JesusOnlyWay:
JesusOnlyWay, While I believe you are raising some valid points, you’ve hijacked this thread to do so - this thread is not the appropriate thread to debate the truths or falsehoods of Catholisism. This thread is strictly for the discussion of the Catholic view of Catechism vs Scriptures.

 

[wmscott]

JesusOnlyWay, While I believe you are raising some valid points, you’ve hijacked this thread to do so - this thread is not the appropriate thread to debate the truths or falsehoods of Catholisism. This thread is strictly for the discussion of the Catholic view of Catechism vs Scriptures.

Thank you Adam, this is very astute of you, charitable, and is a positive Christian attitude. I was going to post that it is more proper to come and ask questions and then provide counter points. It is not a place to come and attack the Catholic Faith, and demand proof of our beliefs to false allegations. It is uncharitable and not a very Christian attitude. Those that do come here with genuine interest are treated with respect even though it is their right to disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches and believes. Those that come here an attack, are hostile, and downright mean in their conversations here are naturally going to be met with heated attitudes.

 

[wmscott]

JesusOnlyWay

Cut and paste from lies, unbiblical falsehoods, and bogus philosophies is one thing, providing you with proper “Biblical” citation is another. How else can a person provide you with all that you need to pull you out of the darkness of ignorance. I have posted this before and will do so again.

Since you seem so keen on following the Sacred Scriptures, which is a good thing by the way, there is two ways “Tradition” is cited in the Bible. One way is in a positive light when discussing “Sacred Tradition” and then in a negative light when discussing “Man-Made Tradition”. There is a very clear and indisputable difference between the two. As for the “Man-Made Tradition” it is very clear that it is counterproductive and needed to be avoided. The Bible clearly in Matthew 15: 1-6, Mark 7: 1-13, & Colossians 2:8 (see below, I have provided the full passages so that it would be in context) warns against “Man-Made Tradition”. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is talking about the “Man-Made Tradition” of the washing of hands before eating (Ritual Purification).

Sacred Tradition on the other hand is also very clearly spelled out in the Bible. The below passages are provided to help put this issue into perspective. Notice that not every passage specifically says the word “Tradition” (Sacred Tradition), however in reading the passages it is abundantly clear that this is what is being conveyed. My only hope is that you and others reading this are not going to say if it does not specifically say the word “Sacred Tradition” then it is not so. There are many words that I know you believe in that are not specifically stated in the Bible. This is where 2Pet 1:20-21 really comes into play. Because of Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture can be properly interpreted. This is why the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Continued…

 

[wmscott]

PART TWO

Now before you get to the scriptural citations below, let me ask you a question. In light of the explanations above regarding the differences between “Sacred Tradition” and “Man-Made Tradition”, and now knowing the differences between the two, If the Bible says to hold fast to tradition (Sacred Tradition), how is it that you can deny, or disobey the very Bible you hold in such high esteem? If you do this seems to be a double standard then, and really boils down to “if it is Catholic, it is wrong”.

“Sacred Tradition”

1Cor 11:2 - I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2Thess 2:15 - Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2Thess 3:6 - We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.

1 Peter 1:18 Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers:

Acts Of Apostles 6:14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the traditions which Moses delivered unto us.

Galatians 1:14 And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Jn 21:25 - There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.

Mk 13:31 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

2Tim 1:13 - Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

2Tim2:2 - And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.

2Pet 1:20-21 - Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God

2Pet 3:15-16 - And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures

1Pet 1:25 - but the word of the Lord remains forever." This is the word that has been proclaimed to you.

Rom 10:17 - Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

1Cor 15:1-2 - Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

Mk 16:15 - He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature.

“Man-Made Tradition”

Matthew 15: 1-6 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They do not wash (their) hands when they eat a meal.” He said to them in reply, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is dedicated to God,” need not honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mark 7: 1-13 Now when the Pharisees with some scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they observed that some of his disciples ate their meals with unclean, that is, unwashed, hands. (For the Pharisees and, in fact, all Jews, do not eat without carefully washing their hands, keeping the tradition of the elders. And on coming from the marketplace they do not eat without purifying themselves. And there are many other things that they have traditionally observed, the purification of cups and jugs and kettles (and beds).) So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?” He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.” He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’ Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban”’ (meaning, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.”

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

 

[JRKH]

Hello,

My question regards how Catholics view the scriptures, catechisms, and other church teachings/documents.

From reading forums and Q&A’s, it seems to me that Catholics view the catechism as their primary or first rule/authority in life. (The catechisms being the church’s interpretation of the Bible, which of course makes the Bible the ultimate authority.)

From what I can tell, a Catholic usually first goes to the catechisms to answer questions regarding life, theology, etc.

As a protestant, I would usually go to the Bible first, and perhaps use a catechism or commentary to help me understand the scriptures. But I would usually go directly to the Bible first to answer a question. It seems that Catholics tend to do the opposite, though - go to the catechism first and foremost.

Is this an accurate perception? In the Catholic view, what are the positions of the Bible and the catechisms/church documents?

Thanks,
Adam

Without first reading previous responses I would say that this is a fair assessment.

As to the reasons, it would be because it is “The Church” that Christ and St Paul directed us to for guidance and Authority. (Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18-15-19, 1Tim 3:15).

The Church, in turn, has provided us with a comprehensive document, based upon the Bible as well as other Church documents, that gives the inclusive teachings of “The Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. In addition, the catachism provides us with an assurance that we do not err through personal interpretation.

As to the relative positions of the Bible - catachism/church documents - I would have to say they are near to equal. The Bible of course is the Root document - unchangable - and actually IS a Church document. Other documents - catachisms etc may change with differing language and understandings.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

What does Jesus say about Tradition?

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."

--Jesus Christ
    Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

There is no need to shout here - Or use the bright read colors - We hear and see very well on this forum. We are also aware that those who hold to Sola Scriptura are holding to a tradition as well. Big letters and bright colors do not change that.

**1. **1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Where does it say, “Listen to Catholic Tradition?” Relevance please? Where does it say this was passed down by oral tradition?
**
2.**2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

Where does it say, “Listen to Catholic Tradition?” Relevance please? Where does it say this is oral tradition?

---

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Relevance please? This does not commend us to the Traditions of the Catholic religion. Where does it say this is oral tradition?

ETC
1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ~ Where does it say, “Listen to Catholic Tradition?” Relevance please?
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ~ Where does it say, “Listen to Catholic Tradition?” Relevance please?
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. ~ Where does it say, “Listen to Catholic Tradition?” Relevance please? Paul is instructing people who heard him and his fellowlaborers.

If the pope was a man of God, what would he do?

Instead of bossing everybody around and telling them how to disobey the scriptures, he’d agree with Paul by saying…

2 Corinthians 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

Hallelujah and thank you Jesus for laying it all out in your word! You are the Word (John 1:1)! Jesus never sanctioned the organization of the Catholic religion, in fact He hates it.

Is the Bible enough?

The Catholic religion says, “No, the Bible is not enough. You have to keep it in perspective.” But the Bible says something entirely different. Revelation says the BIBLE IS COMPLETE. That means the Bible ain’t missin’ nothin! There is nothing to be added and nothing to be taken away.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

If you are a Catholic person teaching people to believe in Tradition, you need to re-evaluate what you are doing. Not only do you follow a false gospel, you add to and subtract from God’s word. You might want to read the above again and consider what you are doing.

I’ve compiled a list of every New Testament reference to the word “scripture”. NO WHERE will you find it say that the scriptures are not sufficient for everthing that we need. One Catholic told me,

"The Bible itself never claims to be the sole rule of faith. The Bible claims itself useful to settle disputes, etc..but never, anywhere does it say that faith and Christianity is taught ONLY through the Bible."

Of course this is not true, but the larger question is this:

Where does the Bible say that it is NOT the sole rule of faith?

If what you believe is supposed to be based on the Bible, then logically speaking, there must be a place that specifically sanctions the Catholic religion and its traditions. You won’t find it. The burden of proof rests on the Catholic, not the Bible believer.

I know it won’t make a difference to you because I’m not writing in great big red letters, but

Ever hear of - “Hold fast to that which you have learned from us either BY WORD or by letter.”
Ever hear of - “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, anbd whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Ever Hear of - “The Church which is the pillar and foundation of Truth.”

Ever consider that, in the first 1400 years of Christianity there was no printing press and virtually every christian person recieved thie training via Oral teaching?
Ever consider that “Bible Alone” was never even a concept until the Reformation - 1500 years after Christ and 1000 years after the canonization of the bible.

Catholics are neither blind, deaf or dumb when it comes to Scripture. I hope that you will be able to learn that as you post and discuss things here.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I am a Calvinist, so I’m familiar with the use of the Catechism there. Catholics seem to view the Catechism much higher (closer in authority to scripture) than Calvinists, do, so hence my question.

My question was not a criticism as such, but an attempt to understand the Catholic theological worldview and foundational tenets.

Well - I for one saw no insult in your question. I thought is was a good one and well worth discussing.

One of the great things about the catachism is that the Church’s teachings are right there and not nearly as subject to interpretation as many Bible verses are. So a non-catholic can go to the catachism and learn “true” church teaching.
Most protestants cannot do that. Yes they go to the Bible, but there are so many different doctrinal groups out there - all claiming the bible - and all with different interpretations.

Peace
James

 

[Godfollower]

Hello,

My question regards how Catholics view the scriptures, catechisms, and other church teachings/documents.

From reading forums and Q&A’s, it seems to me that Catholics view the catechism as their primary or first rule/authority in life. (The catechisms being the church’s interpretation of the Bible, which of course makes the Bible the ultimate authority.)

From what I can tell, a Catholic usually first goes to the catechisms to answer questions regarding life, theology, etc.

As a protestant, I would usually go to the Bible first, and perhaps use a catechism or commentary to help me understand the scriptures. But I would usually go directly to the Bible first to answer a question. It seems that Catholics tend to do the opposite, though - go to the catechism first and foremost.

Is this an accurate perception? In the Catholic view, what are the positions of the Bible and the catechisms/church documents?

Thanks,
Adam

Hello, Adam!

I think part of your perception is skewed by the nature of these forums. A lot of the threads on CAF are started by non-Catholics who challenge, question, or outright attack a given theological statement – but they happen to be wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches. So we go to the Catechism to demonstrate what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

For example, if a non-Catholic starts a thread saying “The Catholic teaching on papal infallibility is demonstrably false, because popes in the past have sinned,” we are most likely to go, not to Scripture, but to the Catechism to demonstrate what “the Catholic teaching on papal infallibility” is (the problem with that particular challenge being a misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching itself).

Similarly, if someone says they can’t accept Catholicism because the Church teaches that evil acts are acceptable as long as they’re done for good reasons, we could point to the Catechism (paragraphs 1753, 1759, 1960) to demonstrate that the Church teaches the opposite. But we might also point to Scripture for the substantive response that we cannot do evil in order for good to result (Romans 3:8).

A LOT of Catholic apologetics consists of undoing misapprehensions about what the Catholic Church actually teaches. One of the best ways to show what the Church teaches is to cite the Catechism on the subject at hand (“I don’t like the Catholic Church because it teaches that everyone who kills himself is doomed to Hell” “No, it doesn’t; see CCC paragraphs 2282-83”). But this results in an inordinate amount of citations to the Catechism, so it looks like it’s more important than it is.

The Catechism is merely a summary of Church teaching, with citations to help anyone who needs to do further research. It is most emphatically not a source of Church teaching; it’s the other way around.

 

[wmscott]

It appears the the first part of my post (#41) did not make it.

JesusOnlyWay Since you seem so keen on following the Sacred Scriptures, which is a good thing by the way, there is two ways “Tradition” is cited in the Bible. One way is in a positive light when discussing “Sacred Tradition” and then in a negative light when discussing “Man-Made Tradition”. There is a very clear and indisputable difference between the two. As for the “Man-Made Tradition” it is very clear that it is counterproductive and needed to be avoided. The Bible clearly in Matthew 15: 1-6, Mark 7: 1-13, & Colossians 2:8 warns against “Man-Made Tradition”. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is talking about the “Man-Made Tradition” of the washing of hands before eating (Ritual Purification).

Sacred Tradition on the other hand is also very clearly spelled out in the Bible. The below passages are provided to help put this issue into perspective. Notice that not every passage specifically says the word “Tradition” (Sacred Tradition), however in reading the passages it is abundantly clear that this is what is being conveyed. My only hope is that you and others reading this are not going to say if it does not specifically say the word “Sacred Tradition” then it is not so. There are many words that I know you believe in that are not specifically stated in the Bible. This is where 2Pet 1:20-21 really comes into play. Because of Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession, and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture can be properly interpreted. This is why the Catholic Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

 

[PJM]

=JesusOnlyWayWhat does Jesus say about Tradition?

“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites.” -Jesus Christ Mt.15: 3

1"Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

Hmmm. NOT the same Traditions being talked about

Where does it say, “Listen to Catholic Tradition?” Relevance please? Where does it say this was passed down by oral tradition?

How do you suppose the history of the Jewish People was taught and passed on? This was in a era of near complete illiteracy, without word of mouth there would be no OT!

**2 Thess. 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2

Thess.3: 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us **

Heb. 6: 10 For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.

James 2: 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

Mt. 19: 17 And he [JESUS] said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

***1 Peter 4: 17 For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? ***

Friend do you know who was speaking and to whom? A Catholic to Catholics, although the name had yet to exist!

If the pope were a man of God, what would he do? Instead of bossing everybody around and telling them how to disobey the scriptures, he’d agree with Paul by saying… 2 Corinthians 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. Hallelujah and thank you Jesus for laying it all out in your word! You are the Word (John 1:1)! Jesus never sanctioned the organization of the Catholic religion, in fact He hates it.

Sanction it? He founded it! It is kind of you to share YOU’RE personal opinion. Such is the reason for in excess of 30,000 non-Catholic sects in a period of about 400 years. It was also very convenient for you to ignore the bible verses that prove you’re lack of faith and understanding of the very bible you claim as yours. Mt. 16:13-19,Eph. 4: 1-7 [note ONE], Lk.22:28, Mt.20:18, 1 Jn.4:4-5, 2 Cor. 9:13, 2 Cor. 11:12, jn. 10:1, Rev. 3:7, Mt.7: 21-23, 2 Tim. 4:1-3.

Is the Bible enough?

The Catholic religion says, “No, the Bible is not enough. You have to keep it in perspective.” But the Bible says something entirely different. Revelation says the BIBLE IS COMPLETE.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

***Friend, “this book” means the Book of Revelations! *** Rev. 22:18 “I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

If you are a Catholic person teaching people to believe in Tradition, you need to re-evaluate what you are doing. Not only do you follow a false gospel, you add to and subtract from God’s word. You might want to read the above again and consider what you are doing.

Friend you would do well to take your own poorly given advice. You’re attempt to Pontificate fails.

I’ve compiled a list of every New Testament reference to the word “scripture”. NO WHERE will you find it say that the scriptures are not sufficient for everything that we need.

Of course this is not true, but the larger question is this:

Where does the Bible say that it is NOT the sole rule of faith?

Let’s start with Jn. 20:30-31, then read again 2 Thess. 2:13-15 and 2 Thess.3: 6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us”

If what you believe is supposed to be based on the Bible, then logically speaking, there must be a place that specifically sanctions the Catholic religion and its traditions. You won’t find it. The burden of proof rests on the Catholic, not the Bible believer.

There is and it does, you’re too obstinate to accept it. Mt. 16:13-19. And specifically verse 19!

Love and prayers friend

 

[wmscott]

JesusOnlyWay, I have got only one word for you DECAF…

Why are you such a hater? Is this how your Bible teaches you to act? From your tone and inflammatory statements, it seems you have very little Christian charity about you. You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church, however have some respect for our beliefs. Just take a moment and go back over your posts and you will see what i am talking about.

 

[Corki]

JesusOnlyWay seems to no longer be with us. But…

(

b) Korol Wojtyla, the current pope, allows himself to be called “Holy Father”. This term is found ONCE in the entire Bible. It is in the garden of Gethsemane and Jesus is praying to God the Father:

we shouldn’t blame him/her entirely since it seems he/she was just cutting and pasting from some older anti-Catholic material.

 

[JudieK]

And of course, the obvious thing here… the elephant in the room… the Catholic Church COMPILED and canonized scripture!!! It is only by the authority of the Catholic Church that “Bible-believing” protestants have the Bible! If the Church is so wrong on everything, why are they trusting the authority of the Church in such an important matter? AND… if John in Revelation said nothing shall be added or removed (from a book that did not yet exist), why then did protestants remove 7 books to suit their desires? Yes- they REMOVED them, we didn’t ADD them. They were always there.

Jesus never said “Go and write a book.” He founded the Church on the rock of Peter, breathed His spirit on the apostles, and gave them the authority to carry on HIS work in HIS name. That is what the Church is… operating on the authority given it by Christ. Part of that “work” was to go and preach the Gospel and teach it. Not the written gospels… the ORAL TEACHING of the Church… what they saw and believed… a.k.a. the Sacred Tradition. This seems obvious to me! There WAS NO BIBLE THEN- what did Christians back then have to go on??? THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH- that’s ALL!!

One of my other favorite arguments… if Protestants believe that anyone can pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them in their interpretation of scripture and that all these interpretations are valid, then the Catechism and all the teachings of the Church are OUR spirit-guided interpretations and as such are JUST AS VALID and worthy of respect as anyone else’s.

Oh- and one more thing… Protestants say they follow scripture alone, but that simply isn’t true. They listen to their pastors, and follow what their pastor says. HE becomes the authority for them. And all the big millionare Christian writers out there who do Bible studies (however good and valid) i.e. Joyce Meyers and Beth Moore, are simply interpreting Scripture for others and telling them what it means… (without the God-given authority to do so as the Church has)- how is that DIFFERENT than a Catechism? They are putting their own ideas and spins on everything… “adding” to scripture if you will. They are hawking their own “traditions” so to speak.

 

[CWBetts]

Unfortunately, Judie, dear, the “Bible Only” Christians wont listen to our well-reasoned arguments. IMHO, its because they are stickking theor fingers in theor ers and yelling “LALALA ALALALA I CANT"T HEAR YOU!!! LALALALALA!!!”

 

[JudieK]

Unfortunately, I think what you say is true. I was on facebook trying to have a very reasoned, well-documented discussion with a protestant preacher about the Bible. He would never even comment on my arguments… just completely gloss over them and continue to spit out his anti-catholic vitriol. I decided to “google” him… and found that he has a website thats whole message and purpose was to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the church of SATAN. No wonder he wouldn’t listen to me… he thought I was in league with the Devil himself! LOL After that I realized he was way too far gone to have a discussion with… we were not operating from a level playing field because I was respecting his beliefs (while disagreeing with him) while he had absolutely NO RESPECT for mine, seeing me as little more than a satanist. I ended the discussion because it was pointless. I pray for him instead…sometimes that’s all we can do for those who are beyond respectful and reasonable dialogue.