I don't get it...if you are a non-Catholic Christian, then why aren't you a Catholic Christian?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes but a study of history will show that absolutely no traditions outside of scripture can be traced to Christ. There are no doctrinal statments or teachings that can be proven to come from Him outside of scripture. That is why it is all conjecture and guesswork trying to figure out which church contains the correct traditions. That non-fundamentalists (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc) disagree with one another proves my point. All of these churches rely on their traditions. But their traditions cannot be reconciled with one another.

Scriptures tell us that everything Christ did with the Apostles is not written and they tell us He explained all things to them, referencing parables. John 14 through 18 shows discussions only between Christ and His Apostles, where Christ promised the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would come to them and teach them all things. He taught those He placed in authority over His Church, who He commanded to teach us all things. A modern day individual cannot simply read the scriptures and know what is tradition and what is not. You must include His Church.

You mention groups claiming to be fundamentalists that are not. A group claiming to be fundamentalist no more negates Truth than a group claiming to be Catholic negates your claim. People will always attempt to attach themselves to Truth. There are groups who claim to be Christian if you want to use a different term that clearly are not. Every so called philosophical appeal you are trying works against your claims as well.
The Church is the Pillar of Truth. That is why when you are attempting to find that church one must rely on the only innerant God breathed truth: scripture.

Now you have cornered yourself to prove that your ‘group’, small Church that follows the Bible, has ALL the correct teachings, doctrines, interpretations, etc. His Church has a documented trail back to the Apostles. It’s not hard to find when you open your eyes, heart and mind to His truth. Scriptures make His Church inerrant, through His establishing the Church and His promises to those He chose and appointed over His Church. As I mentioned above, John 14 through 18 is discussions ONLY between Christ, yet many Protestants believe that He speaks to each and everyone of us. When read in context, it’s clear He spoke certain things to the authority and He spoke things to the multitudes. He did not give a blanket authority as has been assumed by the ‘modern thinking’ Churches.

Your attempt to claim that modern Catholic teachings are the teachings of the Apostles is also not accurate. If that were the case, everyone would read the scriptures and see that your church is true. Obviously they do not. God always works in God’s time. Ancient Isreael floundered for thousands of years until God finally showed them the Truth. God always gives a choice and too often people reject that. That is the story of ancient Israel, prophet after prophet revealed the Truth and yet she rejected it. Now, the same thing happened to His church. People started to fall away in Revelation and nothing historically indicates that it got any better. Corinth threw out the elders who adhered to correct doctrine and replaced them with ones who did not according to Clement.

If scriptures were the ‘final authority’, they would say so. They don’t. Now, to say we can’t believe in the traditions, whether spoken or written, makes scriptures incorrect. People cannot read scriptures for themselves, they need the other authority that Christ established. If the written word is superior to the Church, why did Christ establish a Church, that wrote the scriptures, instead of writing everything down Himself, or having it scribed?

You continue to go to Revelation as if it supports your argument, yet I see it the other way. The Churches had began to ‘stray’, separate, and through Christ’s words, they were corrected to return to the one way.

Nothing historically shows it got any better? One Church survived the centuries. Christ did not leave generation, after generation, without truth. Modern day thinkers show a lack of faith in Christ’s power and promises by saying the Church He established could not have survived time or man.

God had covenant after covenant with man, and yes man failed Him. That’s why God made a new and EVERLASTING covenant for His people, ALL people.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Private interpretation is a sin and incorrect you are right. That is precisely what allowed people to fall away from the clear teachings of the Apostles. You and I agree on so much. You just came to a completely different conclusion about where to find that church.
That church has to follow all the teachings though. They are known by their works and their rejection of the world. His Church has always been opposed by the world and cannot have corrupt influences. If it does, it is not His church, it cannot be. I think we would agree on this as well.

The fundamentalist Church, has private interpretated scriptures. The founders of the fundamentalism read the scriptures, years removed and without relying on any tradtion, to say they have found the correct interpretation and the whole time without the authority of scriptures endorsing such. Scriptures do not teach us to interpret scriptures for ourselves. There are many examples of Christ reprimanding those for interpreting scriptures incorrectly, or not understanding the scriptures. There are scriptures, in the Old Testament, showing the priests had to explain scriptures, causing the people to understand. We saw the example of an Ethiopian who had the scriptures and could not understand them until an authority from the Church explained them to Him. The Bereans received the ‘interpretation’ from Paul and then searched the scriptures, they knew by heart, and realized he was right.

The Church you continue to speak of, with the little ‘c’, is without authority and is no more than a body of believers who cannot instruct themselves, let alone others. Yes, many bring people to believe in Christ and then teach incorrect interpretations. Peter was very clear with his warnings. The unlearned and unstable wrest the scriptures, to their own destruction. He warned us not to be led aside by the error of the unwise.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;6542043]Scriptures tell us that everything Christ did with the Apostles is

not written and they tell us He explained all things to them, referencing parables. John 14 through 18 shows discussions only between Christ and His Apostles, where Christ promised the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would come to them and teach them all things. He taught those He placed in authority over His Church, who He commanded to teach us all things. A modern day individual cannot simply read the scriptures and know what is tradition and what is not. You must include His Church.

But you cannot name a single solitary tradition that came from Christ or his apostles. What you considere Sacred Tradition cannot be historically verified to come from Him or his Apostles. As such, you have to rely on what Church you trust. You have to read tradition to know what church correctly taught it. You painted yourself into a corner. You trust a single Church because you studied it I assume. So you placed your faith in that particular church.

Now you have cornered yourself to prove that your ‘group’, small Church that follows the Bible, has ALL the correct teachings, doctrines, interpretations, etc. His Church has a documented trail back to the Apostles. It’s not hard to find when you open your eyes, heart and mind to His truth. Scriptures make His Church inerrant, through His establishing the Church and His promises to those He chose and appointed over His Church. As I mentioned above, John 14 through 18 is discussions ONLY between Christ, yet many Protestants believe that He speaks to each and everyone of us. When read in context, it’s clear He spoke certain things to the authority and He spoke things to the multitudes. He did not give a blanket authority as has been assumed by the ‘modern thinking’ Churches.

I am happy to defend any of our beliefs. Lets start with something simple. Do Catholic women wear head coverings or cut their hair or do they ignore what Paul taught?

If scriptures were the ‘final authority’, they would say so. They don’t. Now, to say we can’t believe in the traditions, whether spoken or written, makes scriptures incorrect. People cannot read scriptures for themselves, they need the other authority that Christ established. If the written word is superior to the Church, why did Christ establish a Church, that wrote the scriptures, instead of writing everything down Himself, or having it scribed?

It is explicit and implicit through out the text. You even just appealed to its authority to say that! You do realize that from your study of history that Peter approved of the writing of Mark to teach what Christ taught? I wonder how closely you looked if you do not know that tradition teaches that.

You continue to go to Revelation as if it supports your argument, yet I see it the other way. The Churches had began to ‘stray’, separate, and through Christ’s words, they were corrected to return to the one way.

No it does support my argument. They were corrected but nothing in the text said they listened…does it?

Nothing historically shows it got any better? One Church survived the centuries. Christ did not leave generation, after generation, without truth. Modern day thinkers show a lack of faith in Christ’s power and promises by saying the Church He established could not have survived time or man.

God had covenant after covenant with man, and yes man failed Him. That’s why God made a new and EVERLASTING covenant for His people, ALL people.

Oh he left them truth alright. You broke out the word everlasting. Did God make everlasting covenants in the Old Testament? What did that mean?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The fundamentalist Church, has private interpretated scriptures. The founders of the fundamentalism read the scriptures, years removed and without relying on any tradtion, to say they have found the correct interpretation and the whole time without the authority of scriptures endorsing such. Scriptures do not teach us to interpret scriptures for ourselves. There are many examples of Christ reprimanding those for interpreting scriptures incorrectly, or not understanding the scriptures. There are scriptures, in the Old Testament, showing the priests had to explain scriptures, causing the people to understand. We saw the example of an Ethiopian who had the scriptures and could not understand them until an authority from the Church explained them to Him. The Bereans received the ‘interpretation’ from Paul and then searched the scriptures, they knew by heart, and realized he was right.

The Church you continue to speak of, with the little ‘c’, is without authority and is no more than a body of believers who cannot instruct themselves, let alone others. Yes, many bring people to believe in Christ and then teach incorrect interpretations. Peter was very clear with his warnings. The unlearned and unstable wrest the scriptures, to their own destruction. He warned us not to be led aside by the error of the unwise.

You believe in Sola Church. Admit it. You do not really on scripture or traditon but your private interpretation that the Catholic Church got it right out of all the churches. But I will tell you what you judge Christ’s Church on? You know what it is. Fruits. Pure and simple fruits. When Paul teaches Timothy about the role of the presbyters, bishops, and deacons he clearly states what matters is the content of their character. In your belief system, the laying on of hands supercedes the person’s character. As long as your pastor is in line with Apostolic Succession, that is what matters. Of course scripture never teaches that. Its a private interpretation of a group a long time ago

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But you cannot name a single solitary tradition that came from Christ or his apostles. What you considere Sacred Tradition cannot be historically verified to come from Him or his Apostles. As such, you have to rely on what Church you trust. You have to read tradition to know what church correctly taught it. You painted yourself into a corner. You trust a single Church because you studied it I assume. So you placed your faith in that particular church.

Do you believe in the real presence? It’s very scriptural, unless one seeks to reject Catholicism and therefore has to read ‘symbolic’ into their interpretation.

Read Revelation and everytime you see something ‘Catholic’, count it as scriptural; i.e. the use of candles, incense, robes, prayers/praises used, etc. Again, it comes down to interpretation.

The hierarchy of the Church is scriptural, and a very easy read. Those who reject that hierarchy have to read something into the interpretation so it can’t verify what Catholics say it means. You mentioned Matthew 16, an extremely easy read to see that Peter, and Peter alone, received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, yet most Protestants deny this. To deny it, one has to read something not there in the reading.

I am happy to defend any of our beliefs. Lets start with something simple. Do Catholic women wear head coverings or cut their hair or do they ignore what Paul taught?

I’m not sure why it’s changed, but with the authority to bind and loose, it doesn’t seem like an issue to me. A woman’s covering is her husband. A woman’s covering is her hair. And, yes some Catholic women wear head coverings.

Now, take the time to explain how your Church is not privately interpreting scriptures? The Bible came through the Catholic Church. Those who wrote the New Testament, gave their interpretations to those they had appointed, through oral tradition. How did the Catholics preserve scriptures for over 1500 years, but Protestants can interpret it better?

It is explicit and implicit through out the text. You even just appealed to its authority to say that! You do realize that from your study of history that Peter approved of the writing of Mark to teach what Christ taught? I wonder how closely you looked if you do not know that tradition teaches that.

Oh, we’re going to use Mark, who wrote what He learned from the ‘oral tradition’? How do we know that he wrote correctly? What about Luke? Some of Paul’s writings show things learned from the oral tradition and was not written in scriptures, can we believe all of it now? See, you’ve appealed to your rejection of the Catholic Church to read it how you want and not for what it is, history and scriptures. God did not turn mankind loose at any given time. Noah led the people, Abraham led people, Moses, led the people, now the successors of Peter leads the people, just as Peter did in his time.

No it does support my argument. They were corrected but nothing in the text said they listened…does it?

Whoa, wait right there. Your whole argument has been on what is explicitly written in scriptures, now you use ‘it isn’t in scriptures, therefore it supports my argument?’ That is the kind of double standard most Protestants hold the Catholic Church too. That’s following a ‘tradition’ outside of scriptures, only when was that tradition founded? Sometime since the 1500s, I’d bet.

Oh he left them truth alright. You broke out the word everlasting. Did God make everlasting covenants in the Old Testament? What did that mean?

God made covenants with man and man failed God. Jesus’ promises were until the consummation of the world. He is the fulfillment of all. There will be no more covenants. What He did not do, is write down the truth for them. He preached it to them and commanded them to teach and preach. He did not command them to ‘write’ anything, yet you hold the scriptures above the oral tradition, even though that which is written tells us to hold to the traditions, whether by word or epistle. That is irony.

I can’t help but notice, you didn’t address the founding of the ‘fundamentalist’ Church. What is it you hope to achieve on a Catholic forum, since you present yourself to know more about Catholicism than the Catholics here?

 

[Janet1983]

I always wonder why people leave any church, let alone the catholic church! I know from other posters, that when some leave the cc, they are labeled as never fully accepting the faith, or being undercatechised.

I used to get that too at the beginning…
After explaining that I was catechized and practicing before I left the CC, I got a couple of interesting remarks (including the ones telling me I was placing my soul in jeopardy and a limited few telling me I was on my way to hell if I didn’t change my ways).
Not every defected Catholic is actually “undercatechized” (as you put it) or has never fully accepted the faith.

 

[Janet1983]

There was only one Church in scriptures, and those men imposed hands to make appointments. There are NO examples of anyone appointing themself, or others, outside of those chosen and appointed.

People leaving Churches is sometimes because of the appeal of other doctrines or teachings that they find more in line with their own lifestyles. That’s the problem of having a ‘mall’ of Churches for people to shop through.

Not every doctrinal issue is a lifestyle issue. What doctrines do you think make people turn from the Catholic faith?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not every doctrinal issue is a lifestyle issue. What doctrines do you think make people turn from the Catholic faith?

Catholics are to attend Church every week, and Holy Days of obligation. I know many Protestants who claim it’s not necessary to attend Church every week.

Not all Protestants are ‘pro-life’, or they state they don’t believe life begins at conception.

Many Protestants reject the idea of ‘anti-birth’ control.

Many reject the idea of confessing their sins.

Compare the number of sacraments between the Catholic Church and other Churches. Even sacraments are rejected.

There are a few examples, Please note I have to use adjectives like ‘many’, because Protestants do not all agree with each other. That’s a problem in itself. Some say the Catholic Church became corrupt, to the point ‘it can’t be the one true Church’, others say, ‘it never was the one true Church’, yet they are not in what scriptures teach us was ‘the one true Church’ with the many denominations of Protestantism for people to pick and choose from. If the Catholic Church wasn’t, or lost it’s place as, the one true Church, the one true Church cannot be many different Churches, with just as many different doctrines. Oh, I know many will speak nicely here, but on other forums there are many who claim if their doctrines aren’t adhered too, those outside will be lost forever. For instance, I used to frequent an Assembly of God forum, and they didn’t agree among themselves. It’s that kind of thing that supports the ‘thousands’ of different denominations.

 

[Janet1983]

I have to admit, that I was very curious as to what these examples would be like. The problem is that I don’t disagree with many moral norms that the CC stands for, even though my new denomination doesn’t prescribe anything concerning these issues.
If this was true for most people who leave the Catholic Church, then I would consider myself an exception. On the other hand it might also be an indicator for a stereotype that might not be applicable at all and only concerning the minority. I really couldn’t say as I don’t know very many defected Catholics personally.

Catholics are to attend Church every week, and Holy Days of obligation. I know many Protestants who claim it’s not necessary to attend Church every week.

I attend church every week… religiously so to speak. I don’t have to, but I wish to attend every week and think that is what should be the reality. We shouldn’t be forced, but be compelled to go to church on Sunday.

Not all Protestants are ‘pro-life’, or they state they don’t believe life begins at conception.

I am 100% pro-life. If you know somebody who wants to abort… I would be adopting this very minute.

Many Protestants reject the idea of ‘anti-birth’ control.

I don’t use birth control, but I think that is more of a personal preference as there is no such regulation in my faith.

Many reject the idea of confessing their sins.

I never had a problem with the confession of sins, even though I do not believe anymore that there is an actual absolution. I went to confession at least weekly, if not daily (depending on the schedule of the surrounding churches and my schedule).
I think that pastoral care can be very helpful in dealing with one’s sins.

Compare the number of sacraments between the Catholic Church and other Churches. Even sacraments are rejected.

I used to accept all of them. That I do not accept certain sacraments anymore does not have anything to do with my lifestyle, but with theological differences.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Do you believe in the real presence? It’s very scriptural, unless one seeks to reject Catholicism and therefore has to read ‘symbolic’ into their interpretation.

Read Revelation and everytime you see something ‘Catholic’, count it as scriptural; i.e. the use of candles, incense, robes, prayers/praises used, etc. Again, it comes down to interpretation.

The hierarchy of the Church is scriptural, and a very easy read. Those who reject that hierarchy have to read something into the interpretation so it can’t verify what Catholics say it means. You mentioned Matthew 16, an extremely easy read to see that Peter, and Peter alone, received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, yet most Protestants deny this. To deny it, one has to read something not there in the reading.

I’m not sure why it’s changed, but with the authority to bind and loose, it doesn’t seem like an issue to me. A woman’s covering is her husband. A woman’s covering is her hair. And, yes some Catholic women wear head coverings.

Now, take the time to explain how your Church is not privately interpreting scriptures? The Bible came through the Catholic Church. Those who wrote the New Testament, gave their interpretations to those they had appointed, through oral tradition. How did the Catholics preserve scriptures for over 1500 years, but Protestants can interpret it better?

Oh, we’re going to use Mark, who wrote what He learned from the ‘oral tradition’? How do we know that he wrote correctly? What about Luke? Some of Paul’s writings show things learned from the oral tradition and was not written in scriptures, can we believe all of it now? See, you’ve appealed to your rejection of the Catholic Church to read it how you want and not for what it is, history and scriptures. God did not turn mankind loose at any given time. Noah led the people, Abraham led people, Moses, led the people, now the successors of Peter leads the people, just as Peter did in his time.

Whoa, wait right there. Your whole argument has been on what is explicitly written in scriptures, now you use ‘it isn’t in scriptures, therefore it supports my argument?’ That is the kind of double standard most Protestants hold the Catholic Church too. That’s following a ‘tradition’ outside of scriptures, only when was that tradition founded? Sometime since the 1500s, I’d bet.

God made covenants with man and man failed God. Jesus’ promises were until the consummation of the world. He is the fulfillment of all. There will be no more covenants. What He did not do, is write down the truth for them. He preached it to them and commanded them to teach and preach. He did not command them to ‘write’ anything, yet you hold the scriptures above the oral tradition, even though that which is written tells us to hold to the traditions, whether by word or epistle. That is irony.

I can’t help but notice, you didn’t address the founding of the ‘fundamentalist’ Church. What is it you hope to achieve on a Catholic forum, since you present yourself to know more about Catholicism than the Catholics here?

So you have no traditions that can be proven to come from Christ or the Apostles. You do not. So this tradition I am supposed to accept is based upon what a particular church believes is true?

Okay lets look at Revelation.
Candles

Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever

.
What was I supposed to see again?

Incense does appear in Revelation.
It is used by angels. You always like to look at context and how was doing what. Do you have angels using incense?

Rev 8:5 And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast [it] into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.

Robes…yes people wore robes back then…and notice that this has nothing to do with the church leadership being the ones to wear them

Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

What prayers do you see in Revelation that we do not use? Enlighten me!

 

[Rightlydivide]

As far as your hair comment, your church is able to ignore something because of binding and loosing? Well why bring anything else up? When you do not do it, its an example of being able to change things.
What part of Paul’s reason is not applicable anymore?

1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

1Cr 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

1Cr 11:12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As far as your hair comment, your church is able to ignore something because of binding and loosing? Well why bring anything else up? When you do not do it, its an example of being able to change things.
What part of Paul’s reason is not applicable anymore?

You can’t see that 1 Corinthians 11 is about subjection?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I can’t help but notice, you didn’t address the founding of the ‘fundamentalist’ Church. What is it you hope to achieve on a Catholic forum, since you present yourself to know more about Catholicism than the Catholics here?

I know more about Catholicism than some but certainly less than others by a long shot.
What I hope to achieve is that Catholics that consistently like to participate in threads challenging the validity of churches outside their own (present company included sir) will have a person to counter their arguments using scripture.
I usually chime in when I have had my fill of people who like to challenge us with their version of the Truth. Its a non-Catholic forum. I usually do not start these threads but I will particpate and defend Truth. Good enough reason?

 

[Rightlydivide]

You can’t see that 1 Corinthians 11 is about subjection?

Simple question. Is there anything in that passage that you believe indicates that Paul meant this to be temporary?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you have no traditions that can be proven to come from Christ or the Apostles. You do not. So this tradition I am supposed to accept is based upon what a particular church believes is true?

Well, let’s do it this way, what traditions of the Catholic Church do you reject?

Okay lets look at Revelation.
Candles

Maybe you don’t realize it but, Catholics consider the Church to be the kingdom of Christ on earth. He rules His kingdom from His heavenly throne.

**Rev 1:6 And hath made us a kingdom, and priests to God and his Father. To him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. **

Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks:
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Revelations is full of uniformed and elaborate settings, which Catholic Churches are similar too. But to respond to your post, I’m going to take it, as you presented it, a quote at a time.

Incense does appear in Revelation.
It is used by angels. You always like to look at context and how was doing what. Do you have angels using incense?

Robes…yes people wore robes back then…and notice that this has nothing to do with the church leadership being the ones to wear them.

Does your preacher/pastor wear fine linen vestments as commanded by the Lord?

**Exo 39:1 And he made, of violet and purple, scarlet and fine linen, the vestments for Aaron to wear when he ministered in the holy places, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Exo 40:13 Thou shalt put on them the holy vestments, that they may minister to me, and that the unction of them may prosper to an everlasting priesthood.**

Does your Church use candles and incense as commanded by the Lord?

Exo 40:24 (40:22) He set the candlestick also in the tabernacle of the testimony, over against the table on the south side,
Exo 40:25 (40:23) Placing the lamps in order, according to the precept of the Lord.
Exo 40:26 (40:24) He set also the altar of gold under the roof of the testimony, over against the veil,
Exo 40:27 (40:25) And burnt upon it the incense of spices, as the Lord had commanded Moses.

It appears more than angels used candles and incense, as commanded by God. And yes, robes were worn in those times, but some wore robes of specific designed, as commanded by God.

Also, consider that Revelation speaks of ‘saints’, are those ‘saints’ in heaven, or is John referring to all Christians as ‘saints’? Paul refers to ‘angels’, but it certainly appears to be men he speaks about, specifically ‘pastors’ or ‘messengers’.

1Co 6:3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world?

The English definition of the Greek used does not always imply ‘angels’ who were not ‘men’. Of course, I feel sure you’re aware of that.

What prayers do you see in Revelation that we do not use? Enlighten me!

I’ve heard the ‘anti-Catholic’ view of ‘repetitive prayers’ of Catholics. Yet we share some of the same praises found in Revelation.

Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures had each of them six wings: and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come

.

Isa 6:3 And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory,

Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.
The heavens and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

I cannot do justice to how scriptural the Mass is, in a single post, possibly a whole thread. Let me offer you a ‘short’ and free online Bible study on the Mass, put together by Scott Hahn. It’s entitled, ‘The Lamb’s Supper: The Bible and the Mass’.

Scott received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy and Economics from Grove City College, Pennsylvania, in 1979, his Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1982, and his Ph.D. in Biblical Theology from Marquette University in 1995. Scott has ten years of youth and pastoral ministry experience in Protestant congregations (in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kansas and Virginia) and is a former Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. He was ordained in 1982 at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Fairfax, Virginia. He entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 1986.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know more about Catholicism than some but certainly less than others by a long shot.
What I hope to achieve is that Catholics that consistently like to participate in threads challenging the validity of churches outside their own (present company included sir) will have a person to counter their arguments using scripture.
I usually chime in when I have had my fill of people who like to challenge us with their version of the Truth. Its a non-Catholic forum. I usually do not start these threads but I will particpate and defend Truth. Good enough reason?

Ok, so Catholics come to a Catholic forum to challenge other faiths? Come on. Catholics are challenged here by other faiths. We respond with how we believe and some of us rely heavily on scriptures, only to have our interpretation totally dismissed with accusations of Catholic beliefs are ‘non-scriptural’. It seems too much for some to even admit that they can see how an interpretation is derived from scriptures. It would be too close to ‘agreeing with the Catholics’.

When Catholicism is challenged, we cannot help the fact that we get that Christ established an authoritative Church from scriptures, not only authoritative but scriptures support ONE Church, of the same mind and judgement, of the same accord. Can you honestly say that’s what Protestantism has brought about?

Then when our interpretation is challenged, we ask where is it written that the scriptures are the ‘final authority’, as you claim it to be. Where does your Church get it’s interpretation? Explain that process, if you would. You said private interpretation is a ‘sin’.

You know Bible history, and you know that Catholics have been in possession of the scriptures since the beginning. It wasn’t until the 1500s that Protestants took the scriptures with them and began ‘new’ traditions with it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Simple question. Is there anything in that passage that you believe indicates that Paul meant this to be temporary?

Answering a question with a question is not an answer.

Let me demonstrate by asking, is there anything in Paul’s writing to indicate that the traditions to be held, whether by word or epistle, was to be temporary?

 

[1beleevr]

The Church is everywhere? Which Church? Give me an example of the early Churches in the Bible being similar to Protestantism today, in that there were many Churches with different teachings.

Well, first of all, let me say that I do not believe that the disciples were catholics. And I believe that the early church did resemble some Protestant churches in some respects> I know that there are many catholics who hate the idea of a sinner’s prayer and altar calls, but based on altar calls that I have witnessed, Peter held one in Acts 2:38 He exhorted the crowd to repent, turn back to God for forgiveness of sins, and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit! Sounds very much like what happened when I got saved! I am prone to believe that most of their baptisms were full immersions, and Paul probably did a fair amount of street ministry. I like to believe also, that Jesus did not restrict His gift of salvation to one church. We are the church, all believers. It is not about a building with stained glass windows, huge sanctuaries, and statues. It’s about God’s people meeting wherever they can, worshipping and communing with their Saviour. Just think of those believers in foreign countries who are not catholic, and are forced to meet in basements and dark alleys, etc.?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, first of all, let me say that I do not believe that the disciples were catholics. And I believe that the early church did resemble some Protestant churches in some respects> I know that there are many catholics who hate the idea of a sinner’s prayer and altar calls, but based on altar calls that I have witnessed, Peter held one in Acts 2:38 He exhorted the crowd to repent, turn back to God for forgiveness of sins, and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit! Sounds very much like what happened when I got saved! I am prone to believe that most of their baptisms were full immersions, and Paul probably did a fair amount of street ministry. I like to believe also, that Jesus did not restrict His gift of salvation to one church. We are the church, all believers. It is not about a building with stained glass windows, huge sanctuaries, and statues. It’s about God’s people meeting wherever they can, worshipping and communing with their Saviour. Just think of those believers in foreign countries who are not catholic, and are forced to meet in basements and dark alleys, etc.?

Are you serious? Of course in the beginning, there was a lot of ‘street ministries’. It wasn’t ‘snap’ and there were the buildings. As you reference Acts 2, think about it, the Apostles were in the upper room and Pentecost happened, giving them the courage to take to the streets and preach confidently. Remember, Christians were persecuted for several hundred years, under a penalty of death. So the Church operated pretty much in people’s houses, or ‘underground’, so to speak. Read all of Acts, and the Paul’s writings. They were arrested and beaten.

The term ‘Catholic’ means ‘universal’. It doesn’t take away that that’s the name the Church took for itself, and it truly became the ‘universal’ Church, which is worldwide. There were no ‘Protestant’ Churches until the reformation, which took place in the 1500s. Up until 1054, there was only the ‘Catholic’ Church. That’s when the great schism took place and then we had the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, both with very close doctrines, both too ‘Catholic’ for the modern day thinkers who reject Catholicism.

When you read Paul’s letters of corrections, you see evidence of a more uniformed service, especially in reference to the Eucharist, or ‘Lord’s Supper’.

Christ built ONE Church. Paul wrote letters to many locations, but all the same Church. This is evident by the letters he wrote, all with the same teachings. The Church wasn’t ‘invisible’, or groups of believers with different teachings/doctrines. When you see differences addressed in scriptures, it’s because there are corrections being made to make them all of the same mind and judgement; of the same accord.

Look at the council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. All the Churches came together to make decisions, together and as ONE.

Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.

The Church was ONE, as it was meant to be, as scriptures tell us it was.

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. **

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;6543107]Well, let’s do it this way, what traditions of the Catholic Church do you reject?

What traditions can be proven to come from Christ and the Apostles? Will you answer the question I have asked several times or avoid it? It is really a choice

Does your preacher/pastor wear fine linen vestments as commanded by the Lord?

Does your Church use candles and incense as commanded by the Lord?

No because we are not Levites and neither are you. I thought knowing the audience was importatnt to you. Why is it not now?

It appears more than angels used candles and incense, as commanded by God. And yes, robes were worn in those times, but some wore robes of specific designed, as commanded by God.

Also, consider that Revelation speaks of ‘saints’, are those ‘saints’ in heaven, or is John referring to all Christians as ‘saints’? Paul refers to ‘angels’, but it certainly appears to be men he speaks about, specifically ‘pastors’ or ‘messengers’.

Are you a Levite? This is an absurd argument and I expect you know the anwer but if you persist in picking and choosing some out of context quotes from the Old Testament I will call you on it.

I’ve heard the ‘anti-Catholic’ view of ‘repetitive prayers’ of Catholics. Yet we share some of the same praises found in Revelation.

Sounds like a lot of the hymns I have heard. So in other words, if we use scripture that is not important? You keep trying to turn the topic and I will not let you.
.

I cannot do justice to how scriptural the Mass is, in a single post, possibly a whole thread. Let me offer you a ‘short’ and free online Bible study on the Mass, put together by Scott Hahn. I

Nice try. You want to switch the topic to the Mass when I asked what prayers WE do not use. But I am calling you on trying once again to switch the topic to what you want this conversation to be about instead of what I am talking about. The correct answer, if you would actually answer is, “no Rightly, I do not know of any prayers in scripture that you do not use” instead of once again attempting to make the discussion what you are familiar and comfortable with. Other posters let you get by with it time and time again but I am focused. I think we know that about me! Once again, do not switch the topic.