Catholocism the only true choice

  • Thread starter Thread starter David_Vestal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In fact, Paul speaks many times in contrast to what the RCC teaches. Paul speaks of salvation by faith, not faith+works. Paul also says to be absent from the body is to be present with God not to be in some sort of cleansing for the temporal effects of sin such as a Purgatory. Paul really speaks of much in Romans that devalues what Catholicism teaches. Many Protestants know that.
 
you people insist in denial of the CC. when you finally accept the fact that it was the CC that existed back then, you come up with another excuse like this, well but the CC back then is not the same as the CC of today. when is this ever gonna stop?

no one questioned the CC except heretics. after a proud monk called ML left the CC, he launched an attack to destroy her. but as you can see She still here because of our Lord’s promise. she always been visible. another attempt against the CC is that the CC is now invisible. i lost count of how many attempts has been made by many to destroy Her. since you people could not get rid of her now you say she is invisible. how sad.
wisdom seeker live up to your name for once. who are “you people” The catholic church did not exist back then. The word catholic was widely used and not as an institution. It would be like me deciding to say that Benjamin Franklin was the first amway salesman because he peddled his inventions throughout town and then claim amway is the oldest company in retail eye glasses ever. Its trickery. There is the word catholic a term and there is the catholic church. two different things.
 
In fact, Paul speaks many times in contrast to what the RCC teaches. Paul speaks of salvation by faith, not faith+works. Paul also says to be absent from the body is to be present with God not to be in some sort of cleansing for the temporal effects of sin such as a Purgatory. Paul really speaks of much in Romans that devalues what Catholicism teaches. Many Protestants know that.
AMEN and so obvious don’t you think!
 
BTW, you describe yourself as Protestant. I would like to know what kind of Protestant (i.e. Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Free Will Baptist, Fundamentalist Baptist, Seventh Day Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Episcoplian/ Anglican, Quaker, Mennonite/ Amish, Nazarene, Holiness, “Non-Denominational” Calvinists, “non-Denominational” Arminians, etc, etc., etc.)?

God Bless,
Michael
I did? when? I claim no denomination I am a Christian a part of the body of believers of our Lord Jesus Christ, Saved by faith Indewlt by the Holy Spirit, Secure in my everlasting salvation and a sinner saved by grace
 
I did? when? I claim no denomination I am a Christian a part of the body of believers of our Lord Jesus Christ, Saved by faith Indewlt by the Holy Spirit, Secure in my everlasting salvation and a sinner saved by grace
Oh my-thatys the first time I have ever heard anyone describe themselves that way-well at least the first time in the last hour or so.

So what do you base that all on? Let me guess-your personal interpetation of Scripture.?
 
I have read Romans and have found no evidence that Paul speaks of the Roman Catholic Church as the one church Christ established. I have read much of Romans with my priest and study group and men’s group with my church. At no time in any event was it ever mentioned that Paul showed evidence that supports what you claim. You really have to read into the passages to get that. Sorry.
of course your minister is not going to tell you that. why? because if could understand what he is reading he would be a catholic. he would be in the Church.

At least you know that there was a church in rome. it is written. now if it is not the CC, which church is it? please tell me.
 
Oh my-thatys the first time I have ever heard anyone describe themselves that way-well at least the first time in the last hour or so.

So what do you base that all on? Let me guess-your personal interpetation of Scripture.?
Are all catholics today as angry as you? If you do not know these things and cannot claim them you are not saved. that is safe to claim. That in fact, is basic theology.
 
**Quote:
Originally Posted by SIA
In fact, Paul speaks many times in contrast to what the RCC teaches. Paul speaks of salvation by faith, not faith+works. Paul also says to be absent from the body is to be present with God not to be in some sort of cleansing for the temporal effects of sin such as a Purgatory. Paul really speaks of much in Romans that devalues what Catholicism teaches. Many Protestants know that. **

Dont worry. dont be afraid. Jesus gave His Church the power to bind and to loose. This means whatever the Church does on earth will be done in Heaven.

you see. as catholics you cant go wrong.

Amen to that.
 
Are all catholics today as angry as you? If you do not know these things and cannot claim them you are not saved. that is safe to claim. That in fact, is basic theology.
I am not angry at all-why would you think that.? You are not the first nor i suspect the last of our seperated bretheren to tell me I am not saved.

I really would appreciate you answering the questions I have aksed you. For instance how do you know the things you mention above? And if you and I read the same Bible and come up with different interpretations(which differ from thousands of other differing interpetations) how do we resolve that? You have thus far studiously refused to answer that question.
 
I am not angry at all-why would you think that.? You are not the first nor i suspect the last of our seperated bretheren to tell me I am not saved.

I really would appreciate you answering the questions I have aksed you. For instance how do you know the things you mention above? And if you and I read the same Bible and come up with different interpretations(which differ from thousands of other differing interpetations) how do we resolve that? You have thus far studiously refused to answer that question.
Bob, I really believe this to be the critical question in religious discussions between Catholics and Bible-only Christians. This passage of scripture should be illustrative to ‘backfrmthebrink’:

1 Cor 14:33 (KJV) - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

‘backfrmthebrink,’ how does this square with this, which you wrote in a previous post:
I think this is complicated to resolve to a conclusion but to say that there is only one truth and only one will be correct. I too find the argument frustrating. I do not think it can be resolved as other things cannot either. such as those believing in election and those not believing in it. That said, I do not think that it is an accident that there is gray here.
Does God tolerate confusion in matters of doctrine, particularly as it relates to salvation? Can Christians, claiming the same source of truth, believe at once:
  • in ‘election’ (by which I’m going to assume something close to the Calvinist definition of the term) or believe in some other schema, such as Arminianism?
  • that baptism is essential for salvation (which is a belief that is not exclusive to Catholics and Orthodox - at the very least, it is held by members of the Churches of Christ), or that it is merely an ordinance that effects no change on the character of the recipient’s soul and thus not essential?
  • that Christ is really present in the Eucharist (which is, again, not exclusive to Catholics and Orthodox), or that it is merely a symbolic, memorial meal?
Now tell me, are these matters merely side issues, or are they essential for salvation? For example, are Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 confusing about the necessity of baptism in salvation? Are Matthew 26:26, John 6, 1 Cor 10:16, and 1 Cor 11:24, 27 ambigious about the reality of Christ’s presence in His Holy communion, and that receiving Him in this manner is essential for salvation? Can members of one body hold each of these positions (noting, as I’ve mentioned twice above, that other ‘Bible-believing’ Christians, aside from Catholics hold them as well)?

Note this passage carefully:

1 Tim 4:16 - Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.

Thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee… sounds to me like sound doctrine is pretty important - that it can indeed have a bearing on one’s salvation.

2 Tim 4:3-4 - For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

Is doctrine unimportant? Does it sound like there’s room for ‘gray areas?’

2 John 1:9-10 - Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.

Wow - continuing in false doctrine - in those essential areas that you’ve determined are OK to have some ‘gray areas’ - could cost you your relationship with God. And those who hold incorrect doctrine are to be avoided. Do you avoid people with whom you dissent on the matter of, for example, the nature of election? Or do you receive them fully as brothers in Christ?
 
I am not angry at all-why would you think that.? You are not the first nor i suspect the last of our seperated bretheren to tell me I am not saved.

I really would appreciate you answering the questions I have aksed you. For instance how do you know the things you mention above? And if you and I read the same Bible and come up with different interpretations(which differ from thousands of other differing interpetations) how do we resolve that? You have thus far studiously refused to answer that question.
If you are asking me how do I know I am saved. The Bible tells me as you well know. Why would you ask me that? If this is not a set up then I will say John14 He is the way the truth and the light and no one comes to the Father except through Him…From now on I know the Father.

We have passed from death to life. Not could or may but HAVE passed, We have become a new creation. Do you think people ingeneral think and pray on that much? I don’t think so. We are a new creation. No longer gentile, no longer a sinner in the same sense though we still have our sin nature, We have passed from death to life forever.

Indwelt, "I in them and You in Me. A counselor to be with us forever.
 
If you are asking me how do I know I am saved. The Bible tells me as you well know. Why would you ask me that? If this is not a set up then I will say John14 He is the way the truth and the light and no one comes to the Father except through Him…From now on I know the Father.
The why does the same Bible tell millions and millions of people something different. How do we resolve that. Is God the author of confusion?
We have passed from death to life. Not could or may but HAVE passed, We have become a new creation. Do you think people ingeneral think and pray on that much? I don’t think so. We are a new creation. No longer gentile, no longer a sinner in the same sense though we still have our sin nature, We have passed from death to life forever

Indwelt, "I in them and You in Me. A counselor to be with us forever.
A counselor who evidently who tells diametrically opposed versions of the truth to those he indewll in. Is the Spirit the author of coinfusion?
 
wisdom seeker live up to your name for once. who are “you people” The catholic church did not exist back then. The word catholic was widely used and not as an institution. It would be like me deciding to say that Benjamin Franklin was the first amway salesman because he peddled his inventions throughout town and then claim amway is the oldest company in retail eye glasses ever. Its trickery. There is the word catholic a term and there is the catholic church. two different things.
Does this mean you would agree with the teachings of that 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Century church (especially if it wasn’t the Catholic Church today, as you state)?

Careful … those first centuries Christians sure sound Catholic in their teachings.

You use the name ‘Catholic’ as a proof that the church that today calls itself the “Catholic Church” couldn’t be the first century church because the first century church didn’t call itself the “Catholic Church”.
This is not proof of any sort.

That would be like saying that no dirt roads existed 200 years ago because nobody called them dirt roads. Until we had paved roads, dirt roads were just called ‘roads’.
Calling them ‘dirt’ roads today is just a more descriptive term … and they existed 200 years ago.

Salut!

michel
 
djrakowski:
First I appreciate your comments. I have to say I agree with most of what you are saying. I do however differe with several key points. The early chruch fathers were not the same as the catholic church proper today. Sorry but they were not.
Here you state an historical inaccuracy.

How were they not the same doctrinally?

In about 107AD St Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of that city and the close friend an disciple of St. John the apostle penned the following about the Eucharistic Real Presence.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.And as for your assertion that
The use of the word catholic was not the same as the institution of the cathic church.
this same author goes on to say in this same letter to the church at Smyrna;
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.So, who will we believe? You and your modern anti-Catholic sources who appear to have an agenda of misinformation to pursue, or the verifiable historic writings of the actual early church fathers?
The Apostles held a position of that as an Apostle and were all made so by the direct words of Christ.
This is not Biblically accurate.
Acts 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Thjat position no longer exists yet individuals can still be apostolic.
And that is precisely the reason tat the Catholic Church can point out its own apostolic succession…and you cannot do so with any of modern post reformation faith communities.
Yes I know of John 21:25 yet that does not indicate that they were to be discusased or recorded anywhere at anytime. making that an irrelevent point on that extent.
Which is one of the reasons that early church documents like the Didache remain even today.
(Cont’d)
 
I do believe that the ground of the truth is the Church. But today still it is a church of spirit. Christ’s Church. That is in no way implying anything catholic.
Although it is the "pillar of the truth, The ground of the truth, The truth it is holding up remains the Word. The Bible. The truth.
In all those respects, the Bible would remain as the only word of God. Yet that is to blindly place your faith in the teachings of men that have no root in anything Christian prior to some 500 years ago. These same modern men began their descent into gross errors in doctrine with the very doctrine that you express. Sola Scriptura, which cannot be supported from the Bible without twisted interpretation and out of context proof texting. In the context of the entire Word of God, (not to mention the writings of the early church), no such doctrine can be found.

Understand that in this discussion of SS, there is very important distinction to be made between what the Catholic Church believes and those outside it. This explains it clearly.
Everytime a non-catholic offers scripture to people on this site, they get the same old challenge "based on who’s interpretation. There is no mans interpretation. There are those things I know the Holy Spirit has enlightened me and lead me in discernment and there are those things that we begin to believe but remain open to discovery. I don’t however allow a mans interpretation to be given me without my exploration of it.
This is because you begin your case from the flawed premise of Sola Scriptura. The fact is that the Catholic Church has been around since the beginning of Christianity, and until some 500 years ago (or much less in some cases), your beliefs did not exist in Christian teaching.

But these are the interpretations of men. You yourself are just a man (Presuming your male gender), and despite your assertion of the leading of the Holy Spirit, one has reason to question your assertion because your teachings (so far) do not agree with the Word of God nor with the writings of the early church, and you have already been called on several historical inaccuracies in your posts or in copy and pastes of other interpretations of men (whom you consistently fail to attribute to the authors. Every time that happens, your credibility drops.

As for exploration…you certainly should not fail in that regard. It was just such careful study and exploration that led me home to the Catholic faith after over 30 years among various Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and non denoms.
I certainly do not give authority to the catholic church to do this when they have concieved such myths as purgatory, Venerating Mary, who is still waiting to be physically raptured as we all are. or certainly to a Priest . Water regenrationalists, transubstantiation, Mary, confession to a Priest, Not to mention all the other sins done and committed in the catholic faith, buying souls from purgatory, differing levels of sin, . " 1 tim 2:5 We have one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus" Not Mary, yet you ask someone who cannot hear your prayers to intervene when the Word tells us there is only one. That one point alone should be enough to take pause for any discerning man.
This is just anti-Catholic rhetoric. Many of these topics you can find my studies and notes on on my blog.

I somehow doubt that you have even bothered to "explore " the authentic and authoritative Catholic teachings with regard to the topics that you mentioned. Quite a few of them I address on that blog.
Let me ask you this. How cognitively do you not read scripture and self interpret? Is it even possible?
Are you trying to be insulting?

I read the Word of God just fine thank you very much. I read nothing into it and when it comes to any particular topic I insure that I find all scripture that applies to that topic and leave nothing out. That is one reason that I am Catholic and that I reject the Protestant doctrines.
As for the article, I never claimed to write it. I asked what people thought about it!
You need to make yourself familiar with the rules here at CAF. It violates them to post an article like that, especially one that is copyrighted like the one you used. Not supplying the attribution is also against the rules.
nevertheless, I do appreciate your insights and historical knowledge. I just believe that you have gotten the deception mixed up into a beautiful history.
The only deception in this thread comes from those outside of the Catholic faith. Who hold to the teaching of the modern new winds of doctrines of men while discounting or ignoring the mountains of evidence that proves them to be errors at best and heresies at worst.

I urge you to do as so many of us have already done and compare your sources honestly against the facts that we have and will continue to offer and prayerfully discern the truth and make up your own mind.
 
wisdom seeker live up to your name for once. who are “you people” The catholic church did not exist back then. The word catholic was widely used and not as an institution…
This has already been shown to be historically wrong.

The last apostle, St. John died in about 100 AD. Hos disciple and bishop of Antioch, Ignatius wrote to the church at Smyrna using the name Catholic Church less than a decade after St. John died.
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
 
I have read Romans and have found no evidence that Paul speaks of the Roman Catholic Church as the one church Christ established. I have read much of Romans with my priest and study group and men’s group with my church. At no time in any event was it ever mentioned that Paul showed evidence that supports what you claim. You really have to read into the passages to get that. Sorry.
I disagree. One glaring example is as follows.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

That shows very plainly that Paul teaches apostolic succession. A very Catholic teaching.
Sorry…🤷
In fact, Paul speaks many times in contrast to what the RCC teaches. Paul speaks of salvation by faith, not faith+works. Paul also says to be absent from the body is to be present with God not to be in some sort of cleansing for the temporal effects of sin such as a Purgatory. Paul really speaks of much in Romans that devalues what Catholicism teaches. Many Protestants know that.
Here you make statements that are simply inaccurate.

Take all the New Testament passages that speak of faith and works and there you will find the fullness of truth about this.

Further from Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. 17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. That is very much a Catholic teaching even today. One that is often attacked by n-C/a-Cs, yet there it is in the Word of God.

Where is it written anywhere in Catholic teaching that the Lord is absent from Purgatory? I have never seen that. So then Paul again is saying nothing contradicting the Catholic faith.

Protestants claim to know many things…that does not mean that they are correct in their teachings… Especially in light of all the evidence to the contrary.😛
 
Absolutely Christ established one Church. Can you show me where the Holy Scriptures depict the Church that Christ founded to be the Roman Catholic church?? This in all logic’s sake should clear this up.
Okay, no problem.
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic (“universal” in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, “the Catholic Church,” at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim. There’s a whole Bible study in that one section, but I suggest that you read the entire link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top