help please

[Milesius]

And this is typical one true church arrogance I absolutely DESPISE

But its true, its like despising how 2+2=4 because it upsets the people who want it to equal 5 or 6 and calling mathematicians arrogant for insisting that it really can only be accepted as equalling 4.

 

[Milesius]

This is not a tantrum thrown at authority. This is the result of actually reading and reflecting on the Word of God. Jesus is my authority. The Lord is my Shepard.

See that is pride, you think you know better than everyone about what Jesus taught and did. Do you think no one else has read and reflected on the word of God?

The Catholic Church is the only reason you have the Christian scriptures to read at all.

 

[Milesius]

It is my firm belief that the Bible we see today was guided by the Holy Spirit and is the infallible Word of God

Which was given to us by God through the Catholic Chruch, complied by the Catholic church and which only the books decided upon by the Catholic Chruch at the Council of Carthage in 397AD were recognised as divinely inspired and infallible.

This is what St Augustine was referring to when he said:

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…"

Please learn some history, here read this:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

 

[bibleguy180]

Any reason? Maybe we can help resolve the doubts you have about the list

the historical validity is questionable. For example, who was the second pope?

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15).

on that same list

Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope

and he is the ONLY pope before 1900 that you can’t click on. Even if the list can be proved historically, it still does not prove they were infallible, which was only established as doctrine in 1870, and it doesn’t prove that Peter was the rock Jesus referred to.

 

[Milesius]

Since you seem to share my love of the bible let me share with you the things I found:

From the Bible on the Pope

home.inreach.com/bstanley/auth.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/mag.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/prim.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/sent.htm

What the Bible says about the bible alone:

home.inreach.com/bstanley/scrip.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/scrip2.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/legacy.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/ss.htm

What the Bible says about salvation by Faith

home.inreach.com/bstanley/fides.htm
home.inreach.com/bstanley/works.htm

What the Bible tells us to look for to recognise Christ’s Church.

home.inreach.com/bstanley/truech.htm

 

[coolduude]

the historical validity is questionable. For example, who was the second pope?

on that same list
and he is the ONLY pope before 1900 that you can’t click on. Even if the list can be proved historically, it still does not prove they were infallible, which was only established as doctrine in 1870, and it doesn’t prove that Peter was the rock Jesus referred to.

Good objections, but they are all answerable

The second Pope is Linus. I’m somewhat confused as to your actual objection, because Sylvester III ‘reined’ in 1045, about 1,000 years after Peter. Can you please restate your objection?

You seem to think that because the doctrine of infallibility was formally defined in 1870, it must have also been made up in 1870 (am I right?). But this is not the case:

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

**
Based on Christ’s Mandate**

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

(catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)

Check out that article

As for Peter being the Rock:

youtube.com/watch?v=uC8m7Bitqrc (Part I)
youtube.com/watch?v=8Kqbnzbh2Wc (Part II)

These are very good videos, and you should have the time to watch them because it’s Saturday night (unless, of course, you’re going out with friends ) SeptemberCatholic18 has also made videos on your other objections, such as Mary, Papal Infallibility, etc. I’ve watched a lot of them, and they are very, very informative. Give it a shot

As you have already acknowledged, there can only be one Truth. If you are sincere in finding that one Truth, listen to the Catholic side of things with an open heart and open mind. You will get nowhere fast if you want Catholics to be wrong; you could have a top theologian explain things to you, but if you want us to be wrong even that won’t help. My point is, listen to us with an open heart and mind, then make a decision. Don’t give up just yet

EDIT: This is a must watch video on the Papacy!! youtube.com/watch?v=wZEALztUKQI

 

[legendashmore]

BibleGuy:
What do you say to James?

James 2:21-24
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[Tracyms1974]

Oh, well the biggest ones I suppose are the infallibility of the pope, who is a mere man like you and me. Also, the “three-legged stool” analogy that says the Magisterium and tradition are equally as important as the very Word of God Himself?!? Sounds like blasphemy to me…
EDIT: Also that we are saved by faith alone, which is clearly stated in the Holy Bible.

I see that you responded and I am happy to see that.

The pope is only “infallible” under certain circumstances. I think the lastest example of this is when Pope John Paul II added the 4th set of mysteries to the Rosary, the Luminous Mysteries. That may not have even been an infallible proclamation, it may have been something he wanted to do 'cause he thought it was a good idea. Also, I said “add.” The Pope can in no way erase any doctrine that has been accepted as true. He cannot take away the 8th Commandment and tell everybody, “Okay, everybody, it’s okay to lie now!!” This does not sound like a man with a lot of power to me. In fact, the Pope is actually a servant to God and His/his people. Pope Benedict himself said, “I am a worker in God’s vineyard,” or something similar. We have a Pope more for the reason that somebody MUST be in charge and do Jesus’s job (NOT BE Jesus - don’t misunderstand me) than to flash his ring around and be “infallible.” I hope this helps you some.

Tracy

I have to go. I will comment on tradition and mess later.

 

[Tracyms1974]

Oh, well the biggest ones I suppose are the infallibility of the pope, who is a mere man like you and me. Also, the “three-legged stool” analogy that says the Magisterium and tradition are equally as important as the very Word of God Himself?!? Sounds like blasphemy to me…
EDIT: Also that we are saved by faith alone, which is clearly stated in the Holy Bible.

I’m home from work now. Already talked about infallability. And here’s a perk - my posts are short!!

One of my favorite priests always said in his homilies, VERY smart man, this guy, “The Bible cannot interpret itself.” He is absolutely right. Consider any other book, a popular read by James Patterson, my favorite author for example. I read the book. You read the book. You think it’s awful, I think it’s great! Some people like Tom Clancy. I couldn’t get past the 3rd chapter of Patriot Games, too long and drawn out.

So here is my point. Since these are leisure reads it makes little difference whether everybody likes them, understands them, reads them at all, etc. When you are talking about the BIBLE - the divinely inspired WORD OF GOD, it DOES make a difference whether or not Christians understand it and if possible read it. (Liking it is still subjective.) This is where the Magesterium comes into play. Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope all discuss or have discussed every chapter and verse of the Bible left, right, up and down. This information is passed down to parish priests, deacons, and seminarians so that when they have to explain the Word of God to their congregations, they themselves understand it and know what to say. A lot of Protestants think this takes away some kind of freedom of thought from the congregation, but I don’t think it does. I think it is simply a matter of education and you are free to read the Bible yourself anytime outside of Mass as long as you still go to Mass every week.

Tradition is important because without tradition how would a priest know how to say Mass every week? Protestants have some level of tradition whether they like to admit it or not. Tradition keeps us from skipping Easter and Christmas in any given year. Tradition dictates what readings will be used in Mass from week to week. I do not envy some of these Protestant churches that do not do that because I (probably unlike you) am pretty slack about reading my Bible outside of Mass. So…since the readings are predetermined by Tradition, I can still stay pretty up-and-up on the Bible itself because the Church goes to great lengths to rotate readings well and cover as much of the Bible in a year as they can. You hear the same stories like the feeding of the 5,000 every year or every other year and for this reason, you don’t forget them. Protestant Churches who do not do this run the risk of repeating that same story five times in a given year due to forgetfulness, IMHO.

I work 3rd shift and I must sleep now. I tried to keep this post short and easy to read for you since you have been getting some that are not that way. (I don’t even want to read them.) Whatever you end up doing, I hope it makes you happy and I don’t think I have to worry about you straying too far from God, which is great. Always remember too, that if you do leave the Church and things don’t work out, you can always come back. There is a process, but you can still come back and I would imagine said process is not hard.

God Bless You,

Tracy

 

[JRKH]

Yes, I know when and why the pope is said to be infallible, I don’t believe it to be true, it wasn’t even defined dogmatically until 1870!

You are right in that the infallibility was not dogmatically defined until 1870 at the First Vatican Council. However does that mean that infallibility did not exist before then?
I ask you to look at Mt 16:15-19. Who is “Rock” (Kepha in Aramaic, Petros in Greek) that Jesus promises the Keys to. What authority goes along with those keys?

I am also aware that the Catholic Church developed the canon, however, it was the only serious Christian group around at the time, and didn’t have all the doctrines and dogmas it does today. Also, it’s not like there were a million books floating around and they had to carefully weed out the bad ones. They had the books we see today, and possibly some others like Thomas, but they were thrown out because they could be used to support gnostic ideas.

Perhaps you would be interested in this website that lists over 150 writings all dated before 250 AD. Add to this any writings dated between 250 and 350 AD and you probably have more like 350 documents (at a minimum) that had to be reviewd by the councils who determined the canon.

As to Doctrines and Dogma’s I would ask you to consider the following.
In Mt 18:15-18 we find Christ teaching His disciples (The Church) how to preserve unity. In this passage, Christ tells us that when anyone sins against their brother (and spreading false doctrine is certainly sinning) they are to discuss it among themselves and then with others and finally, if no resolution is reached, they should, “Tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to The Church”.
Note this too. Christ uses the term Church only twice in the Gospels and both times it is in connection with granting authority to “bind and loose”.

Now we can see this principle played out in Acts 15 where there is a dispute at Antioch between the Gentiles and the “judaizers” from Jerusalem concerning circumcision and the other Mosaic Laws. It was a dispute that not even the great St. Paul was unable to resolve. It was then taken to a council in Jerusalem where the elders of the Church including Peter and James, made a determination guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, a new “doctrine” was set and the question fo circumcision settled.
The Church has been excerizing this authority in pretty much the same way ever since.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

It is my firm belief that the Bible we see today was guided by the Holy Spirit and is the infallible Word of God

It is good that you hold to the Bible. I hope that you will hold to ALL of it.
The portions I mention in my previous post are often overlooked or twisted by those who would deny the authority of The Church which Christ instituted.
Also -
One should never apply the term “infallable” to the written word. It would be more correct to say that the “Written Word of God” is inerrant, that is does not contain error.
The Bible is inerrant, but are you? (are you perfect?)
Are you an infallible interpreter of the “Word of God”. (are you perfect?)
If you are fallible, then how can you be sure you will infallibly interpret the inerrant Word of God?

Peace
James

 

[bibleguy180]

No, the translation is" there is sin" in the St. Ignatius Bible which is recommended by EWTN. Mortal sin is not unforgivable. Yes, the only unforgivable sin is the sin of not wanting to be forgiven, to persist in evil as you said. No, it is not about who struggles with what and who sins the least. That would be none of our business. It is about trying to become more holy by never giving up even when we fall over and over again and loving God and our neighbor.

The great majority say a sin, including the NAB which the Catholic Church (I’m pretty sure) officially uses, the NIV, the Douay-Rheims, which many people on here consider the best, as well as the KJV. Funny how such a big disagreement can occur over the presence of an article, the smallest word in our language.

 

[bibleguy180]

Good objections, but they are all answerable

The second Pope is Linus. I’m somewhat confused as to your actual objection, because Sylvester III ‘reined’ in 1045, about 1,000 years after Peter. Can you please restate your objection?

It says some guy named Tertullian said the second pope was St. Clement, as did St. Jerome

 

[bibleguy180]

When the angel Gabriel came to Mary he said,“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
Full of grace meant that one is sinless. Don’ you think that God would have wanted Jesus to be conceived in someone who was clean, unblemished by sin. Mary was chosen by God Mary to be the first tabernacle for Jesus. She is the Mother of God. These all would make her more holy. We ask for her to pray to Jesus for us. Don’t you think that Jesus would listen to his mother. We look to Mary our Mother as our role model. We are all called to be holy and so we look to Mary(who was fully human) as an example for us.

We are not saved by faith alone. When we are baptized the Holy Trinity gives us sanctifying grace, the grace of justification. Justification means that we have the possibility of being saved. We have hope that we will be saved by our faith and love of Him and love of our neighbor. When you have faith you want to do what is good and right. We have to fight the good fight until the end of our life.

But surely having sex inside of marriage is not sinful, so if she did, she still would not have sinned. Again I ask, how does being a virgin make one more holy?

 

[bibleguy180]

But its true, its like despising how 2+2=4 because it upsets the people who want it to equal 5 or 6 and calling mathematicians arrogant for insisting that it really can only be accepted as equalling 4.

No, because there is sound proof that 2+2=4

 

[bibleguy180]

BibleGuy:
What do you say to James?

God gives our good works through our faith, they are not to our own credit

 

[bibleguy180]

One should never apply the term “infallable” to the written word. It would be more correct to say that the “Written Word of God” is inerrant, that is does not contain error.

Aren’t they synonyms?

 

[Milesius]

No, because there is sound proof that 2+2=4

According to whose authority?

 

[bibleguy180]

According to whose authority?

Every mathematician that uses our number system ever.

 

[coolduude]

But surely having sex inside of marriage is not sinful, so if she did, she still would not have sinned. Again I ask, how does being a virgin make one more holy?

Because Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit…

Virgin after Jesus’ birth
All through the centuries people have denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, attributing more children to Mary and Joseph. Yet from ancient times the Church has taught that Jesus, conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, was the only son Mary had, and that she maintained her virginity all her life. Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son. St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2: “This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.” Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it. In Luke 1:34 Mary said to the angel: “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” This indicates that our Blessed Mother did not intend to have a sexual relationship with any man. In John 19:26 the dying Jesus entrusted his mother to John the Evangelist, saying “Woman, behold your son.” If our Blessed Mother had other children, Jesus would not have done this. Regarding Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth, proper exegesis is needed to clear up some confusion. Concerning Jesus’ conception and birth, the words “before,” “until,” and “firstborn” have occasionally cast doubt in people’s minds. The most common error is caused by the term “brothers and sisters” mentioned in the Bible. Some light will be shed on these difficulties.
In Matthew 1:18 we read: “When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.” Mary was with child before she lived together with Joseph, that is to say, before she was brought to Joseph’s home through the wedding ceremonies. This scriptural passage simply indicates that the child Mary carries is not Joseph’s. It says nothing about what happens after the wedding. So it cannot be concluded that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the wedding.
Then Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. Again, this verse does not say that Joseph had relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus. It simply states that Joseph had no sexual relations beforehand.
Luke 2:6-7 records: “While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she gave birth to her firstborn son.” Some people conclude that, since Jesus is the firstborn son of Mary and Joseph, there must be second, third, fourth children. But this is not the case. The word “firstborn” means that Mary had no child previously, and that Jesus was the first one who came out of Mary’s womb. It does not necessarily demand that Mary had more children. St. Jerome says that every only son is the firstborn.
The most serious problem for many comes from the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus mentioned in the Bible. In John 2:12 we read: “After this, he and his mother, his brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days.” In Matthew 13:54-56: “He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said ‘Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brother James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?’” Luke 8:19: “Then his mother and his brothers came to him but were unable to join him because of the crowd.” Acts 1:14, talking about the first Christian community in Jerusalem, says that they all devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. And Paul wrote in his First Letter to the Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?”
But we know that in the Gospels our Blessed Mother is always referred to as Jesus’ mother, not the mother of any other man or woman. And Jesus is called the son of Mary, not a son of Mary. In the finding of Jesus in the temple, when Jesus was 12 years old, we see no trace that Mary and Joseph had other children.
How about the people mentioned as Jesus’ brothers and sisters? Who are they? First of all, the term “brother” and “sister” is used in a very broad sense in the Bible. From Genesis 12:5 we know that Lot was the nephew of Abram, later known as Abraham. Thus the verse says: “Abram left Haran, his hometown, and took his wife Sarai, his brother’s son Lot … and they set out for the land of Canaan.” Yet in Genesis 13:8 Lot is considered Abram’s brother: “When dispute broke out between the herdsmen of Abram’s livestock and those of Lot’s, Abram said to Lot, ‘Let there be no dispute between me and you, nor between my herdsmen and yours, for we are brothers’” (See the Jerusalem Bible version). Likewise Laban is the brother of Rebecca, Jacob’s mother. Hence Laban is Jacob’s uncle, but he is called Jacob’s brother (Gen 29:15). In the Song of Songs one’s wife is referred to as his sister: “You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride; You have ravished my heart with one glance of your eyes, with one bead of your necklace” (Song 4:9). Of course we know that at the Last Judgment Jesus will call all men his brothers, for he will say to those on his right: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Matt 26:40).

Continued in next post…