Catholocism the only true choice

[backfrmthebrink]

ChurchMilitant:

You continue to accuse non cath as having placed their faith in something that didn’t exist until 500 years ago but we have placed our faith in scripture from 2000 years ago. I have addressed everything catholic in enough scriptual context and the truth, as you so like to use the term, the truth is the cc does not stand up to any scriptural scrunity. That and that alone should be flags for ewveryone. If you have to refer to other writings of man to support your non scriptural claims then you have no foundation of faith at all.
The fact that early fathers wrote anything means little actually, I didn’t say means nothing but I said little. Paul states in Gal 1:8??? that if they or an angel from heaven preaches a different doctrine.let them be eternally condemned. That should give you and everyone pause before you so quickly hold up your banner based on the writings of man. Man is just tha. Man. Mary was just Mary, blessed yes but no more the gate keeper of heaven that your writers so aptly claim her to be.
God says we are to have NO OTHER gODS BEFORE HIM. that does not mean you can after him but it means that He doesn’t even want to see them.
As for convincing any cath who is so committed, I find it too powerful a stronghold and yet that is addressed throughout scripture as well. The gate is indeed narrow. Perhaps this is why. God hardens who He hardens.

Estesbob:
The Bibble does not tell millions of people one thing and others something else. Nor does the Holy Spirit. Man’s infallibility. That is another reason why the gate is narrow. Saved people are a people of an elect. We are saved because of God and God alone. If the Holy Spirit chooses to open your heart to truth then He will.
As for more on how do I know (of which there is much) Eph 1:13 a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance" Now are you going to tell me that God will fail in finishing what He started in us? He wants us to know we are secure. That nothing can seperate us and that we HAVE passed from death to life. Perhaps so we can get on with His work. The work on the cross was complete. You cannot add to your salvation it at all by your works. Yes works are important. I am not implying they are not. But to teach that you can loose your salvation or that you can’t know you are saved is NOT as the cath church syas a “sin of presumption” it is precisely the message of the Gospels.
Unless you stand with all your cc writers who changed that too.

 

[MrS]

Swan, in post #33 you said:
Actually, it can mean a whole lot of things. Only the RC has this interpretation. Personally, I dont’ see where this line of scripture implies anything of the sort.

Yep you are right

“… the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”

“… the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”

“… the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”

“… the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”

“… the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”

Try reading each with an emphasis on the word in red. All of a sudden we have 5 somewhat different meanings. So how does one know which is correct.

Easy… ask the one who said it.
Oh, He is not here to answer, well then ask the one who heard it.
Oh, he is not here to answer it, so ask the one who wrote it down.
Oh, he is not here either, so ask the one who was taught what it meant.
Oh, he is long gone to… so ask the one(s) to whom he passed on the meaning

and so on, and so on.

This is a value to all from the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church can trace its teaching back to the Apostles…and only the Catholic Church, the Apostles (Peter first, then Peter and the 11) received the authority to teach, to lead, to love… To Feed MY sheep.

Anyone, that is ANYONE, who is not properly ordained in succession from the Apostles, has NO authority to Feed My sheep.

They are simply the laity who have assumed ministerial duties. And both Numbers and Jude have taught us what will happen to them eventually.

.

 

[MrS]

if the catholic church is the true choice what do you think of this?

Lets not forget who actually wrote the majority of the New Testament…

It seems that you are hinting that St Paul, the Catholic Apostle to the Gentiles is that man.

Wrong.

St Luke, the Catholic human author of the 3rd Gospel is that man.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

neither were catholic. yet another rewriting of history

 

[MrS]

I find it curious that this cut-‘n’-paste debate strategy is tried so frequently by people who assert that scripture, in and of itself, is sufficient to settle all religious questions. If that’s the case, then why should our interlocutors need to rely upon the tradition that frames the material posted from the above-mentioned website? Shouldn’t they possess the ability to make these connections with the Bible alone, and not the aide of materials included in an anti-Catholic website?

I guess they need an “outside” authority after all.

 

[MrS]

neither were catholic. yet another rewriting of history

Okay… both were members of the first Church, call The Way.

By the year 109, the members were referred to as Catholic (not baptist, or Methodist, or Calvinist, or Lutheran.)

Church, the word, was used only…ONLY… in reference to this group of TheWayers, or Catholics. In fact, Church is never used in the OT, and is first used as the word to describe what Jesus would build ONE of.

Any other group outside The Way (or Catholics) should not even use the word Church. At best they are faith communities.

.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

and we do then you always go back to cath writings for your support. BTW all any religion needs to do to claim they are the oldest especially if they hold a position of “Bishop” is to claim the Apostles as their first head of their church. The cc has no corner market on this but other religions seems to have a bit less greed and a bit more integrity. The lie is so old and the business of the cc very powerful that many have bought into it. sad.

 

[MrS]

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. 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 . .

If we can agree that the Holy Spirit is not capable of leading one into error, …

then how can you explain all the different non-Catholic faith communities who interpret Scripture “on their own” and then make the same claim you do… but come up with different results?

How can the Holy Spirit tell one group about yes to infant baptism, and another no.

How can the Holy Spirit tell one group yes to contraception, and the other group no.

How can the Holy Spirit tell one group yes to divorce, and another group no.

How can the Holy Spirit tell one group that Jesus meant IS in John 6, and another group that He meant symbolizes.

“… and I will build My church…” He builds it. It is His, thus divine. It is singular, not many.

And I will send another, the Paraclete, to lead you into all Truth.

I think you have been seriously misled… and you can’t blame the Holy Spirit for that.

.

 

[hawkeye]

I find it curious that this cut-‘n’-paste debate strategy is tried so frequently by people who assert that scripture, in and of itself, is sufficient to settle all religious questions.

Good point.

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.

Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.

 

[MrS]

and we do then you always go back to cath writings for your support. BTW all any religion needs to do to claim they are the oldest especially if they hold a position of “Bishop” is to claim the Apostles as their first head of their church. The cc has no corner market on this but other religions seems to have a bit less greed and a bit more integrity. The lie is so old and the business of the cc very powerful that many have bought into it. sad.

Absolutly correct… and lots of religions do make that claim. But that is all it is… a claim, and a false and unprovable claim.

My Bishop can trace his ordination back all the way to the 12… that is historical fact, and no one refutes the accuracy. Most other religions have that “void” in history ----- that great chasm they seem to jump and then claim a restoration of sorts.

Do you REALLY think that is what Jesus intended or designed?

 

[MrS]

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.

Yes St Paul has a lot to say… none of which is contary to Catholic Teaching.

St Paul opens and closes his discussion on Faith with the emphasis of the “Obedience of Faith” (that is a work+Faith)

St Paul, with one exception, never quotes Jesus from the Gospels. That is his purpose… and he teaches so much about the value and necessity of grace, and the Church.

the exception?? When he does quote Jesus’ words of consecration at the Last Supper, and warns all the Church that they must accept that** It** is the Body and Blood of Jesus… or suffer a most terrible punishment…

 

[MrS]

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.

Actually it means that whatever the Pope, and/or the Pope and Bishops in union with him bind and loose (declare as Truth in the area of Faith and Morals), on earth has already been bound in heaven.

The Truth is always. So when the Church declares Truth, it already exists in heaven.

The gift of infallibility is a negative protection given by Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit, that “…the gates of hell will not prevail…”

.

 

[MrS]

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.

.

Since St Paul is often discussed in this thread… I ask you… when was St. Paul saved"

Was it when he, as a rabbi, taught the OT?

Was it when he was struck on the road to Damascus?

Was it when his eyes were opened?

 

[Kansasdad]

Kansasdad I am not sure who you are asking the question of. My answer would be this. The Church as we know it to be is the body of believers. The to be bride. It is not an entity such as the entity of the catholic church. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit lead anyone to any truth in the eucharist.
I do understand your difficulty with the Holy Spirit supposedly leading one person to one truth but another to a different truth. 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. I believe if it was something that God wanted to define so clearly He would have. BUT I cannot say that because someone does not see the truth in other areas that it would be because God was not clear. For instance. I believe God was clear when in His Word he says that we have but one mediator. That also salvation is found in no one else for there is no other name under heaven given to me by which you are saved." But you believe that Mary is in heaven now and hears prayers and we are to pray to her for forgiveness and mercy.
I can’t explain beyond the fact that the Holy Spirit moves where He moves.
As for the early church fathers referring to Peter. Please be specific as to who, when and what was written. I respect and love Peter but see too much evidence that he was just an Apostle (not meaning anything by the use of the word just) Peters own words indicate this as well.

You make the claim that the Catholic Church didn’t exist in the early Church. I post undisputed evidence that shows exactly what the early Church Fathers taught and you simply don’t read it. Go back to post 99. and then start really reading what people are posting. If you are not willing to read and learn then what is the point. I have read every one of your post as have many of the other posters. Many of your assertions are addressed and if you take the time to actually study the response you will start to see the path of deception you have been led down. I gave you an example of two people, both claiming to have been guided by the Holy Spirit yet coming to diabolically apposed conclusions. My question is how do you know which one is being deceived. You both claim the same authority. IT COULD BE YOU that is deceived. In fact it is you who has been deceived, and you are refusing to even consider any other in-site you are presented. I have talked with many protestants, and those who finally stop rebelling and open their minds to the simple evidence, soon find all their arguments fall apart. I know this is a gut wrenching thought, but if you really have truth on your side, no amount of verifiable evidence could possible change that. Yet it is impossible to deny that the very early Church Fathers considered themselves one Church and that they adhered to the primacy of Peter. ( don’t argue before you read post 99) Lets just stick with this one deception you have accepted, don’t throw in all the other deceptions you believe in, one at a time. Once you start to see one deception the others will unravel.

God Bless,
K.D.

 

[estesbob]

ChurchMilitant:

Estesbob:
The Bibble does not tell millions of people one thing and others something else. Nor does the Holy Spirit. Man’s infallibility. That is another reason why the gate is narrow. Saved people are a people of an elect. We are saved because of God and God alone. If the Holy Spirit chooses to open your heart to truth then He will.

 

[djrakowski]

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 find this post astounding on at least two levels:

1. To whom did Our Lord give the promise of infallible guidance?

John 16:12-15 - I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and show it to you.

In the greater context of John 15-16, he is speaking to his apostles. Not everyone is given the guarantee of being taught and guarded into knowledge of all truth through the gift of the Holy Spirit. And it is they to whom Christ gave the following command (also accompanied by a promise of eternal guidance):

Matthew 28:16-20* - *And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

This is a command and promise to the apostles - not to each and every Christian who’s ever lived. Otherwise, St. Paul would not have needed to chastise the members of various churches he founded:

Galatians 1:6 - I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.

Galatians 3:1-5 - O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so great things in vain? If it be yet in vain. He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?

Remember that this was addressed to “to the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2) - that is to say, Christians - those whose lives have been changed by having received the Good News of Our Lord. Why, if they had the Holy Spirit, did they need to be corrected (note the degree of St. Paul’s anger - calling these new disciples - possessors of the Holy Spirit - stupid and foollish)? After all, you claim the gift of the Holy Spirit as having enlightened you. Why was it that the Galatians, supposedly animated by the same Holy Spirit, are thus so unenlightened that their spiritual father needed to correct them so harshly? This very same pattern was repeated throughout St. Paul’s letters to the church in Corinth:

1 Cor 1:10-11 - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

How could there be dissension amongst the ranks of Christian disciples guided by the Holy Spirit?

1. You claim that “everytime a non-catholic offers scripture to people on this site, they get the same old challenge.” I find this point particularly striking, especially in light of the (rather heavy) scriptural evidence I’ve presented in support of the Catholic views on scripture, tradition and authority. Instead of actually addressing them (for example, why does St. Paul repeatedly remind the recipients of his letters to hold to the traditions they received from the mouths of the apostles - see 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, and my post #107), you’ve accused us of not addressing the (comparatively few) scriptures you’ve posted.

The issue of authority is, in my opinion, **the **dividing line between Catholics and non-Catholics. The questions asked by MrS (in post #146) regarding how two mutually exclusive positions on such doctrines (the eucharist, baptism, contraception, divorce) can both be allowed in an invisible church of all true believers, in light of the scriptural evidence warning against the dangers of holding to false doctrines (see my post #130). It hits right at the heart of what divides us - who settles matters when different parties of Christians, all claiming the same source of authority (scripture as guided by the Holy Spirit) come to different conclusions about doctrine - especially when incorrect doctrine can lead to losing one’s position with Christ (2 John 1:9-10)?

Do you plan on addressing any of these issues (on which I’ve posted a few times, without any direct, substantive answers), or will you continue to post what you’ve been doing, which leaves the impression that you haven’t bothered to familiarize yourself with Catholicism, the Bible, or Church history?

It’s pretty clear that someone is ignoring scripture - and it ain’t me and my fellow Catholics.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

Since St Paul is often discussed in this thread… I ask you… when was St. Paul saved"

Was it when he, as a rabbi, taught the OT?

Was it when he was struck on the road to Damascus?

Was it when his eyes were opened?

Is that a serious question. It was the moment he accepted Christ as his savior. Was that when the scales fell off. I would think so because the text seems to indicate that. But therre would be a degree of speculation on anyones part to say otherwise would it not?

 

[backfrmthebrink]

Okay… both were members of the first Church, call The Way.

By the year 109, the members were referred to as Catholic (not baptist, or Methodist, or Calvinist, or Lutheran.)

Church, the word, was used only…ONLY… in reference to this group of TheWayers, or Catholics. In fact, Church is never used in the OT, and is first used as the word to describe what Jesus would build ONE of.

Any other group outside The Way (or Catholics) should not even use the word Church. At best they are faith communities.

.

First you have made a terrible mistake in assuming the “Church” spoken of was an institution such as the cc. It is a term referred to as in the body of believers. You use the term “the first church” There really is no such thing. There is only ONLY!!! the “THE CHURCH”. That is the body. It’s just a common mistake that catholics make over and over again.

 

[backfrmthebrink]

I find this post astounding on at least two levels:

1. To whom did Our Lord give the promise of infallible guidance?

John 16:12-15 - I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall show you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and show it to you.

In the greater context of John 15-16, he is speaking to his apostles. Not everyone is given the guarantee of being taught and guarded into knowledge of all truth through the gift of the Holy Spirit. And it is they to whom Christ gave the following command (also accompanied by a promise of eternal guidance):

Matthew 28:16-20* - *And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

This is a command and promise to the apostles - not to each and every Christian who’s ever lived. Otherwise, St. Paul would not have needed to chastise the members of various churches he founded:

Galatians 1:6 - I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.

Galatians 3:1-5 - O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so great things in vain? If it be yet in vain. He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?

Remember that this was addressed to “to the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2) - that is to say, Christians - those whose lives have been changed by having received the Good News of Our Lord. Why, if they had the Holy Spirit, did they need to be corrected (note the degree of St. Paul’s anger - calling these new disciples - possessors of the Holy Spirit - stupid and foollish)? After all, you claim the gift of the Holy Spirit as having enlightened you. Why was it that the Galatians, supposedly animated by the same Holy Spirit, are thus so unenlightened that their spiritual father needed to correct them so harshly? This very same pattern was repeated throughout St. Paul’s letters to the church in Corinth:

1 Cor 1:10-11 - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

How could there be dissension amongst the ranks of Christian disciples guided by the Holy Spirit?

1. You claim that “everytime a non-catholic offers scripture to people on this site, they get the same old challenge.” I find this point particularly striking, especially in light of the (rather heavy) scriptural evidence I’ve presented in support of the Catholic views on scripture, tradition and authority. Instead of actually addressing them (for example, why does St. Paul repeatedly remind the recipients of his letters to hold to the traditions they received from the mouths of the apostles - see 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, and my post #107), you’ve accused us of not addressing the (comparatively few) scriptures you’ve posted.

The issue of authority is, in my opinion, **the **dividing line between Catholics and non-Catholics. The questions asked by MrS (in post #146) regarding how two mutually exclusive positions on such doctrines (the eucharist, baptism, contraception, divorce) can both be allowed in an invisible church of all true believers, in light of the scriptural evidence warning against the dangers of holding to false doctrines (see my post #130). It hits right at the heart of what divides us - who settles matters when different parties of Christians, all claiming the same source of authority (scripture as guided by the Holy Spirit) come to different conclusions about doctrine - especially when incorrect doctrine can lead to losing one’s position with Christ (2 John 1:9-10)?

Do you plan on addressing any of these issues (on which I’ve posted a few times, without any direct, substantive answers), or will you continue to post what you’ve been doing, which leaves the impression that you haven’t bothered to familiarize yourself with Catholicism, the Bible, or Church history?

It’s pretty clear that someone is ignoring scripture - and it ain’t me and my fellow Catholics.

For someone who claims to only recieve interpretation from the church. You must be busy with communication with bishops each and every minute to have such numerous opinions on so many scripture verses. Are you sure you understood so many things correctly from your church bishops? I hope you can see how crazy that thought is. As I am sure you recieved very little if any of this from your bishop. I will address your issues in another post for size reasons

 

[cazayoux]

The Truth is always. So when the Church declares Truth, it already exists in heaven.

This is a GREAT way to see it. Thanks!

michel