So? Who says, besides you, that it should be meantioned?
Catholics aren’t so self limiting. In addition to the Bible, Catholics also have the Church , the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” as an additional source.
All Catholic doctrine came from Jesus in the Deposit of Faith which was handed on to the apostles and their successors.
Purgatory. like the Trinity is just a word used to define a teaching found in the bible. You are OK with the teaching of the Trinity even though nowhere in the bible does the bible tell us that the father and the holy spirit are one or that the son and the HS are one.
1 John 5:7 of the KJV, (“For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one”) - is an interpolation and is found nowhere in the original Greek This is what it actually says:* “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”* Now if the bible said:
Purgatory. like the Trinity is just a word used to define a teaching found in the bible. You are OK with the teaching of the Trinity even though nowhere in the bible does the bible tell us that the father and the holy spirit are one or that the son and the HS are one.
However, the teaching of some sort of purgative interim is in your bible:
Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world **or in the next.” **Jesus, therefore clearly illustrates that there is forgiveness after death. Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death albeit temporary.
Since the holy Bible is your only “source for knowledge on Christ,” perhaps you can tell me where the Bible says that the bible is the Christians only source for knowledge on Christ? Quoting 2 Tim. 3:16 does not answer my question! I, and all catholics, agree with 2 Tim. 3 - “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”
However, it doesn’t say - ONLY scripture…James 1 (KJV) - says: “But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.”
The bible here, tells me that patience as opposed to the bible, makes me perfect and complete, lacking nothing; is that the case?
But let scripture have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing - you might have a point but only regarding the scriptures codified by the CC in the latter part of the 5th century, generations past the time of Christ.
DFW, if you are right and the bible is your only source for knowledge on Christ and doctrinal truth (there can be only one truth regarding any one doctrine) - then perhaps you would kindly answer the following question:
In one corner we have some isolated autonomous churches, eg Evangelical churches - that defer to the bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution, and they come away from the bible believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist. In the opposite corner we have some isolated autonomous churches as well, eg, some Lutheran churches - deferring to their bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution and they too come away from the same bible believing the exact opposite.
To use your own words, someone here is “bringing in man made doctrine.” Which one is it? One of these parties is limiting the importance of the Bible as the only source of doctrine" by teaching something not taught by Jesus the Christ, thereby “making an argument for false religions like Mormonism…that came into play many years after the life of Christ.”
How can one know who’s interpretation is correct regarding the preceding impasse, if in fact the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences.
Looking forward to your straightforward responses.
Howdy back…right back at you…
Come on now, you know that passage makes no mention of the Father, the Son and the HS as one. I could say, go baptize them in the name of Peter, John and Andrew; does that mean that those 3 are one? Of course not.
Well, that’s too bad. Friend, the word Eucharist is a Greek word meaning Thanksgiving and that English word is used in your bible at the last supper and by Paul in 2 Corinthians.
I will provide passages if you are interested.
I do not think that you sound ignorant and I will always admit that you are right if you are right and that I am wrong, if I am wrong.
If it’s your only authority and that was Jesus’ plan from the very beginning, then answering the following question should be a breeze; don’t just ignore me like all the rest; show me that the holy Bible is what you say it is. If it is what you say it is then the following can be resolved with ONLY the use of the bible my friend:
I’m currently in Romans 8 now and am typing up my notes which looks to be just over 7,500 words at this point, so it will take a while to make it through this incredible book. I say that to let you know that 1 Corinthians is next in my study and I will soon be coming across Eucharist- praise God! I worship what God’s word says.Howdy back…right back at you…
Come on now, you know that passage makes no mention of the Father, the Son and the HS as one. I could say, go baptize them in the name of Peter, John and Andrew; does that mean that those 3 are one? Of course not.
Well, that’s too bad. Friend, the word Eucharist is a Greek word meaning Thanksgiving and that English word is used in your bible at the last supper and by Paul in 2 Corinthians.
I will provide passages if you are interested.
I do not think that you sound ignorant and I will always admit that you are right if you are right and that I am wrong, if I am wrong.
If it’s your only authority and that was Jesus’ plan from the very beginning, then answering the following question should be a breeze; don’t just ignore me like all the rest; show me that the holy Bible is what you say it is. If it is what you say it is then the following can be resolved with ONLY the use of the bible my friend:
In one corner we have some isolated autonomous churches, eg Evangelical churches - that defer to the bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution, and they come away from the bible believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist. In the opposite corner we have some isolated autonomous churches as well, eg, some Lutheran churches - deferring to their bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution and they too come away from the same bible believing the exact opposite.
Again, to use your own words, someone here is “bringing in man made doctrine.” Which one is it? One of these parties is limiting the importance of the Bible as the only source of doctrine" by teaching something not taught by Jesus the Christ, thereby “making an argument for false religions like Mormonism…that came into play many years after the life of Christ.”
How can one know who’s interpretation is correct regarding the preceding impasse, if in fact the bible is to be the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences.
You are such a kind person; I too hope the LORD blesses you and your loved ones.
Really? Then how do you know with certainty that the Bible is the complete Word of God since the Bible itself does not contain an inspired table of contents? It seems to me that you are relying on an authority outside of the Bible to testify to the Bible. That authority - in the fnal analysis - is none other than the Cathlic Church.
If this is the case, who decides what is canonical and what not?
You will not find the word *eucharist *in the Bible. It is a Greek word meaning thanksgiving - it forms part of the Jewish seder meal.
I apologize in advance if I ever say anything that may raise your hackles and is uncalled for. I hope I never reach that point though, because it seems you are here both to enlighten and to learn.DFW, it’s great to see your passion for Christ and for His truth!
Your questions and answers have kept me watching this thread with great interest! 
The words of the Apostles that appear in the New Testament were part of Sacred Tradition and only were part of the Bible after being written down, selected from the many other apocryphal writings of the time and in the late part of the fourth century, declared by Damasus the pope at that time, to be indeed the inspired Word of God.
DFWChristian,
I admire your perseverence here on the forums. If you stick around you will learn much more about the Catholic faith and the misperceptions you have learned from others about us. You have already admitted you have learned a little about us and it surprised you, so stick around, you have more to learn. As do we from you.
Some tips: try not to take sarcastic or angry comments personally. We are often attacked here on the forums by well-meaning non-Catholics and sometimes we feel like we’ve reached the end of our ropes - so to speak. Everyone has their own misperceptions of us and each one is a bit different than the next. So sometimes we feel frustrated and during those times, we may not be on our best behavior. Unfortunately, I know this from experience.
Second, as long as you are tactful and respectful of other beliefs, never stop trying to get us to “convert”. What I mean is, don’t stop trying to explain to us why you think we are wrong on specific topics. Be polite, ignore nasty remarks by not acknowleding them, and stay on topic. It may also surprise you that yes, we do learn things from our non-Catholic brethren too!
And finally, please don’t separate the Christian faith from the Catholic faith. To some of us that is insulting. Even if you believe Catholics are not Christians, Catholics do not hold to that belief. As a matter of fact, briefly I’ll tell you why. As Catholics, we believe that…
Catholicism is the original Christian faith. After the Reformation, since other denominations were also calling themselves Christian, we had to choose some sort of descriptor to uniquely identify ourselves - lest others become confused. The descriptor “catholic” had been used every now and again since the end of the first/beginning of the second century, so that’ probably why we chose it. Obviously, the word stuck.
Okay, that may not be the most accurate description, but it covers it in a nutshell. You may not believe it, but please try to respect it. If you want, on some other thread, you can bring up the subject for discussion. Honestly, when you bring up an argument in a respectful way, both sides usually become the better for it. That’s why these forums are a great place to learn.
God Bless,
Snert
So you are reading the bible in Greek, then, since the word from God was not written in English? Or are you reading a man-made translation of the scripture into a man-made language? Come to think of it, Greek is a man-made language, and Greek dictionaries are man-made.
Neither is the Trinity. Do you call the Trinity the Trinity despite never being mentioned once in the Bible?
Which Scripture tells you that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’. God’s breath is very important in Scripture. God breathes life into humanity in Genesis, and Christ breathes on the Apostles to give them the Holy Spirit. The idea that the Bible is ‘God-breathed’ isn’t biblical.
I understand completely why your view of Catholicism is the way it is. If you notice, I am a revert. Prior to letting my religion just slip away, I was of the same caliber of Catholic as your friends. I did not understand my faith. Looking back, that was the reason I left the faith to begin with. I was a Catholic in name only, but I didn’t realize it because I thought I was a good Catholic. Then one day I actually read the Bible (instead of going over a bunch of words I didn’t understand), I actually started understanding some of what I was reading. It was like a lightbulb went off in my head and I said to myself “why did I never see this before?”. Well, okay, it wasn’t a lightbulb. It was Jesus, the Light of the World Himself, through the help of the Holy Spirit.
I understand completely why your view of Catholicism is the way it is. If you notice, I am a revert. Prior to letting my religion just slip away, I was of the same caliber of Catholic as your friends. I did not understand my faith. Looking back, that was the reason I left the faith to begin with. I was a Catholic in name only, but I didn’t realize it because I thought I was a good Catholic. Then one day I actually read the Bible (instead of going over a bunch of words I didn’t understand), I actually started understanding some of what I was reading. It was like a lightbulb went off in my head and I said to myself “why did I never see this before?”. Well, okay, it wasn’t a lightbulb. It was Jesus, the Light of the World Himself, through the help of the Holy Spirit.
If you had been my friend back then, although I didn’t go around carousing and was generally a good moral person, I would have told you Catholicism wasn’t all that great either. But then again I have learned so much since then that now I know I had no idea what Catholocism was. As a Catholic today, I can never learn enough about the faith. The more I learn the more I want to know.
I’m sorry to admit that many Catholics today are nominal and in name only. They just don’t understand their faith very well, and don’t care much to either. Much as I was those years ago. Keep praying for your friends, they just might find their way back to the Lord because of your efforts.
This is another surprise you might find interesting: In general, Catholics agree that Martin Luther had every right to be angry and take some sort of action against what was going on. However we believe the direction he chose was not the proper one. Instead of trusting in his own actions and leaving the good fight, he should have trusted in God to give him the strength to stay and fight. I myself think the Church might have been a bit stronger today had he chose to stay and fight instead of leave and start anew.
Anyway, we can disagree on many things, as long as you can see that serious Catholics are indeed serious about their faith. And of course we do enjoy a good debate.
You should probably tell the friends you still talk with to log in to the forums here at Catholic Answers, they would no doubt get an education about their faith.
BTW, although my name might infer otherwise, I’m a ma’am, not a sir…
God Bless,
Snert
Just so! Someone translated it. But a translation is a man-made resource, as is the English language, and you claim was that scripture alone—to the exclusion of man-made resources—is all you should use. The cognitive dissonance you’re feeling is the collision of the subconscious understanding that the claim entails a preposterous premise, but an unwillingness to consciously apply that realization.
So you think it’s fine to “use other ‘resources’ that are man made and not from God” so long as they apply to what is in the Bible and, ideally, are interpolated into the Bible’s text as footnotes?