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

[Cristian_B]

Read the scriptures. Christ chose and appointed men over the Church. Those men chose and appointed others. Several locations tell us of the imposition of hands. It was their decision, who was accepted.

No. The leaders were chosen by the Holy Spirit. You can find this in many passages in the Scriptures: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers…” (Acts 20:28 emphasis mine) The Holy Spirit chose and appointed the leaders and pastors of the Church.

*But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing *[the gifts] *to every man severally as he will. *(1Co 12:11) The Holy Spirit gives to each of Christ’s imitators gifts like preachings, faith, wisdom, doing miracles, etc. as He wishes. It is not up to the decision of mortals who receives the gifts and what persons receives what gift. It is also written: *…it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. *(Acts 9:5) If God moves you to do something it is very hard to work against His call. If He calls one to give others wisdom it is hard for that person not to do what he was called for. But what if God calls one to preach…? It is written: “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” (1 Cor 7:7) What if one has the gift of teaching or preaching …?

Another passage would be: And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers… (Ephesians 4:11) It doesn’t say apostles, but He, Christ. He chose who was going to be apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. It was not up to mortals and that includes the apostles. Paul said himself: …over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers… (Acts 20:28) He does not say: …over the which I have made you overseers… but …over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers… The holy spirit chose who was going to be overseer even before. He made it known to the apostle and he made it clear to everyone so there wouldn’t be fighting about who was supposed to be leader. The apostle didn’t choose. He only made known what already happened so there wouldn’t be confusion.

Christ.

This is an almost perfect answer (because the maximum authority is the Father, not the Son, but since their will is one it is not important).

Now do you know what else or who else is Christ? Or what is another definition of Christ?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No. The leaders were chosen by the Holy Spirit. You can find this in many passages in the Scriptures: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers…” (Acts 20:28 emphasis mine) The Holy Spirit chose and appointed the leaders and pastors of the Church.

*But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing *[the gifts] *to every man severally as he will. *(1Co 12:11) The Holy Spirit gives to each of Christ’s imitators gifts like preachings, faith, wisdom, doing miracles, etc. as He wishes. It is not up to the decision of mortals who receives the gifts and what persons receives what gift. It is also written: *…it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. *(Acts 9:5) If God moves you to do something it is very hard to work against His call. If He calls one to give others wisdom it is hard for that person not to do what he was called for. But what if God calls one to preach…? It is written: “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” (1 Cor 7:7) What if one has the gift of teaching or preaching …?

Another passage would be: And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers… (Ephesians 4:11) It doesn’t say apostles, but He, Christ. He chose who was going to be apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. It was not up to mortals and that includes the apostles. Paul said himself: …over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers… (Acts 20:28) He does not say: …over the which I have made you overseers… but …over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers… The holy spirit chose who was going to be overseer even before. He made it known to the apostle and he made it clear to everyone so there wouldn’t be fighting about who was supposed to be leader. The apostle didn’t choose. He only made known what already happened so there wouldn’t be confusion.

This is an almost perfect answer (because the maximum authority is the Father, not the Son, but since their will is one it is not important).

Now do you know what else or who else is Christ? Or what is another definition of Christ?

Don’t you realize the author of Acts is telling of a Church authority speaking of the Holy Spirit choosing them, through the men appointed into the Church?

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Let’s look at who He is in the other passage you provided.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

Who was God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE God?

That question above holds the answer to your last question, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE God.

 

[Cristian_B]

You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Does that say He does not appoint us for anything?

Who was God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE God?

That question above holds the answer to your last question, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE God.

My question is: “Now do you know what else or who else is Christ? Or what is another definition of Christ?”, and you haven’t answered yet.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

CristianB,

We cannot think that scriptures contradict scriptures. I provided scriptures that show the Apostles appointed others, through the imposition of hands. Read scriptures in context of scriptures.

The Apostles believed God worked through their decisions, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that Christ promised them would be with them, teach them all things, and guide them.

They also understood scriptures to prophecy that their offices had to be filled once vacated.

Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Act 1:24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
Act 1:25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Does that say He does not appoint us for anything?

Show me the scriptures where Christ appointed the multitude to any task of authority. It’s not there.

That verse is from John 15. Read John 14 through 18 and tell me who was Christ speaking too? He was only speaking to His Apostles. The next time anyone shows up in the story, they had come to arrest Him.

My question is: “Now do you know what else or who else is Christ? Or what is another definition of Christ?”, and you haven’t answered yet.

Christ is the Messiah, foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Lamb of God. The head of the body, which is His Church. The corner stone on the foundation. King of kings. The light and the way of our salvation. The only begotten Son of God, begotten not made, one being with the Father.

If that doesn’t answer your question, I’m not sure what you’re asking. You’ll have to be more specific.

 

[Cristian_B]

Show me the scriptures where Christ appointed the multitude to any task of authority. It’s not there.

Are we the multitude? The multitude isn’t made of believers but of unbelievers as well. There were Pharisees, Gentiles, scribes and other unbelievers in the ‘multitudes’. It is illogical for Christ to actually give them something to do when part of them weren’t even members of the Church.

Christ is the Messiah, foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The Lamb of God. The head of the body, which is His Church. The corner stone on the foundation. King of kings. The light and the way of our salvation. The only begotten Son of God, begotten not made, one being with the Father.

If that doesn’t answer your question, I’m not sure what you’re asking. You’ll have to be more specific.

Fair enough. It is my fault for not being specific. Jesus said:I am the truth. (John 14:6)
And also Jesus is the Word of God (And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. John 1:14) and the Word of God is truth (…thy word is truth. John 17:17).

Jesus is truth. Jesus is the Messiah, which is the Christ. If what you said is true, then, since Christ is the highest authority, then the truth is the highest possible authority since the truth is God. And the apostle Paul said himself: For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. (2 Corinthians 13:8) Not even an apostle had any authority against the truth. The truth is the highest authority and the one who speaks the truth speaks with the authority of God since He is truth.

Do you want me to give you more examples? I will give you one:Matthew 23:2-3 ASV
(2) saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat:
(3) all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.
What is this referring to? In a symbolic sense, sitting in Moses’ seat means teaching from the books of Moses, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, the books of the Law:Exodus 18:13-16 ASV (bold mine)
(13) And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood about Moses from the morning unto the evening.
(14) And when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand about thee from morning unto even?
(15) And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God:
(16) when they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between a man and his neighbor, and I make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
So while the phrase need not indicate a literal chair, archeologists have confirmed that a stone chair has been found in ancient synagogues (in Hamath, Chorazin, En-Gedi and Delos) next to where the law was kept. When reading from scripture, the reader would apparently sit in that chair and read the law to the congregation in judgment.Matthew 23:3 ASV
(3) all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.
The reader (in this case a scribe or Pharisee) would exhort the people to be keepers of the law of Moses, obviously. Jesus here is saying that whatever scripture (Moses’ seat) they read from and bid the people to observe, that the people should observe. So Moses’ seat was a seat from which men read the Law to the people. How does this have anything to do with my explanation? It is writtensalms 119:142 KJV (bold mine)
(142) Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth.
Psalms 119:151 KJV (bold mine)
Thou art near, O LORD; and **all thy commandments are truth. **
The scribes and Pharisees sat on the seat of Moses from which they read the Law. Jesus said: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you [when seating on Moses’ seat], these do and (Matthew 23:3) And it is also written: and thy law is the truth. (Psalms 119:142)

Jesus said that when they sat on Moses’ seat and read from the Law, which is the truth, the disciples should obey and do. Why? Because they read from the truth! The truth itself is the highest authority! But, when they didn’t seat on Moses’ seat, and that is when they didn’t read from the Law, they didn’t read from the truth, and Jesus said not to obey and do what they said when they weren’t on Moses’ seat, because they weren’t reading from the truth (the Law) then but they were talking from themselves.

Is this a good enough example or do you want another one?

So the question is not ‘by what authority’ but ‘does he speak the truth’?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are we the multitude? The multitude isn’t made of believers but of unbelievers as well. There were Pharisees, Gentiles, scribes and other unbelievers in the ‘multitudes’. It is illogical for Christ to actually give them something to do when part of them weren’t even members of the Church.

What about the thousands fed by the bread and fish? Did they not believe?

The multitude is the people. Christ said there would be one shepherd and one flock. Before ascending to heaven, Christ appeared to Peter, and several other Apostles, and told Peter three times to ‘feed His sheep/lambs’.

Thinking on your post about the multitude being everyone, including non-believers. Christ chose and appointed Apostles, yet in Matthew 28, we see some, not specifically named, doubted. Yet, they were still chosen and appointed. Christ knew He had no ‘perfect’ to chose from to lead His Church. He also knew the power of God and that He could lead His Church, through His Holy Spirit, even if there were less than perfect, sinful, men in charge. Even with all this, there is not one example of someone believing and then appointing themself to a position of authority; i.e. Apostle, prophet, doctor (teacher), etc.

Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 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.

I’ll respond to the rest of your post in a few minutes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So the question is not ‘by what authority’ but ‘does he speak the truth’?

I had to delete much of your post, to fit a response.

Did Christ not correct interpretation of Pharisees and scribes? Yes, He did.

The seat of Moses was the authority figure, on earth, over God’s law, we know it as the law of Moses.

Please note that Christ said, ‘observe and do WHATSOEVER those who sat on Moses’ seat said to them.’ He didn’t reference anything about ‘whatsoever they read to you.’ To make that connection is reading something into the passage that simply is not there. If you read the entire chapter, you can see the warnings, ‘woe…’, ‘woe…’ and more ‘woe…’ warnings to those in the authoritative position.

Here’s something to think about. Christ told the people to observe and do whatsoever those who sat upon the seat of Moses said to them. How did the people know what Christ was talking about? The seat of Moses is not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures. They knew this from the ‘oral tradition’.

Please read the following quote to understand the ‘oral tradition’, especially in the times of the New Testament.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved.

Christ knew all things that were to come, including that He was building a Church. When He showed confidence that God’s truth could be protected, even through less than perfect men. This teaches us that Christ has confidence in His promises to be with His Church until the consummation of the world, even through less than perfect men.

The Apostles never taught against the authority of Christ and I have news for you, the Catholic Church does not either. Paul did say they couldn’t do anything against the ‘truth’, but he also warned that it was possible that they, or others, could.

**Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. **

Christ chose and appointed the Apostles, giving them authority. Yet some doubted, all ran away from Him when He was arrested, Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, because they had free will. Going against Christ is not taking His authority. No one can do that. They can however, reject or err against His authority. That still does not take away what He established and appointed.

 

[Cristian_B]

The seat of Moses is not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures.

Moses’ seat means the seat on which Moses sat, obviously. Moses sat on a seat from which he made known the Law. And yes, it is mentioned in Exodus. As long as they taught the Law, they were to be obeyed. But you are missing the point: they were teaching the Law. They were teaching the truth. They made the truth (Law) known to the people. But not everything they said is true. They weren’t always preaching the truth (Law). They were preaching traditions like the washing of hands as well, which is not found in the Law.

But yet Jesus didn’t submit to their claimed authority. Why? He is an example for us. He should have to give us an example that we should as well. But He didn’t. Why? Because, if He would have, He would have abandoned the truth. I understand that the priests, scribes and elders knew Jesus didn’t study under an approved and reputable Rabbi, and they wanted to trap Him claiming His divine authority. If He would’ve preached in their favor, His authority would have been irrelevant. You (Catholics) similarly assert that only you have authority to interpret the Scriptures faithfully. Just as Jesus did not submit to their asserted authority, we need not to submit to the authority claimed by you. Fair enough?

Anyway, my question is: why didn’t Jesus submit to the authority claimed by the priests?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Moses’ seat means the seat on which Moses sat, obviously. Moses sat on a seat from which he made known the Law. And yes, it is mentioned in Exodus. As long as they taught the Law, they were to be obeyed. But you are missing the point: they were teaching the Law. They were teaching the truth. They made the truth (Law) known to the people. But not everything they said is true. They weren’t always preaching the truth (Law). They were preaching traditions like the washing of hands as well, which is not found in the Law.

But yet Jesus didn’t submit to their claimed authority. Why? He is an example for us. He should have to give us an example that we should as well. But He didn’t. Why? Because, if He would have, He would have abandoned the truth. I understand that the priests, scribes and elders knew Jesus didn’t study under an approved and reputable Rabbi, and they wanted to trap Him claiming His divine authority. If He would’ve preached in their favor, His authority would have been irrelevant. You (Catholics) similarly assert that only you have authority to interpret the Scriptures faithfully. Just as Jesus did not submit to their asserted authority, we need not to submit to the authority claimed by you. Fair enough?

Anyway, my question is: why didn’t Jesus submit to the authority claimed by the priests?

Please provide the passage where the seat of Moses is mentioned in scriptures, other than when Jesus told the people to observe whatsoever those who sat in the seat of Moses said. It’s not in the scriptures.

Seems you missed the point, in my opinion. Christ was the authority, the fulfillment, the truth and the way. He still told the people to observe and do whatsoever those that sat upon the seat of Moses told them to do. Now, either we’ve found a contradiction, or we’ve found Christ’s confidence that God’s truth could be protected, even through men.

We are to be Christ like, but we are not Christ. He is the instructor, we are the pupil. He is the King, we are the servants. He is the only ‘begotten’ Son of God, we are adopted children of God. We submit to His authority. We should observe and do as He instructed, and follow the authority He established among men.

Christ had those He chose and appointed over His Church. Just as I showed you, and you quoted the same passage, Christ/God set the hierarchy of His Church.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?

In a hierarchy, everyone has their place, and what does the inspired word of God, the truth, tell us to do?

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Christ did not teach, ‘be like me and everyone lead’. Christ did not teach chaos.

 

[guanophore]

Every church mentioned in Revelation had different teachings! Thats in the Bible.

No, Divide, they did not. All those Churches in Rev. were Catholic Churches. They taught Catholic doctrine. In areas where they failed to do so, Christ made them aware that they had departed from the Truth, and they were in danger of eternal fire.

Why do some people consistently ignore the Book of Revelation in forming doctrine. Matthew 16:18 is no less or more important than any other verse in the Bible. And they were wrong to have incorrect doctrine. Its just like today with many churches not following the true teachings of Christ and His apostles.

Yes, I agree. A lot of the current problems we have with the alternative doctrines (different gospels) result from departures from what the Apostles taught. These departures are based in using a few verses to formulate a doctrine, istead of receiving doctrine from the Church as Jesus intended.

 

[guanophore]

The one cornerstone being…

Christ, who is inseparably united to His Holy Bride, the Church.

Yes, I also believe that there should be "one church’ in terms of following the teachings of Christ and His apostles. That church must be based upon scripture because innerant “tradition” does not exist.

You have fallen prey to heresy. To say that God is unable or unwilling to preserve His Word in His Church is to accuse Him of weakness or indifference. What you are saying is that His promise to lead the Church into All Truth was worthless, along with the promise that He would not leave them orphaned. What happened to the powerful Jesus of Revelation? When did He lose interest and the ability to guide His Church?

Jesus did not build His church on the Scriptures, because He knows there are as many interpretations of it as there are belly buttons. He built it upon the foundation of apostles and prophets -people.

Different churches have different traditions. They cannot agree.

This is why there must be a standard outside of individual persons. This is what the Church provides.

I agree with you. The big problem is that I do not think that church is that church. It is ours and others like it who are fundamentalists. If Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians do not agree with us, you need to get with the program then. We actually believe the same thing! Big problem being that we do not agree what that one Church should be teaching.

No, we do not believe the same thing. Catholics believe scripture, which points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

 

[guanophore]

1 Catholics can eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent.

The fasting practices of Eastern Catholics are different. It is tradition with a small “t” - disciplines and customs, not doctrine.

   Eastern Catholic Christians don't pray the rosary.  Never have.  (Though they may pray it in private as part of their personal devotion.  That's THEIR choice.)

The Rosary is prayed in my Byzantine Eparchy.

 Catholics don't see Mary or the Saints as some kind of burden, but a great gift from God.

I think 1beleevr has authority problems.

 

[guanophore]

  Oh, come on now, you know: Not eating meat on Friday,

How is fasting a “ritual”? Don’t you ever fast?

 confession every week,

It seems that you think this great avenue of God’s grace is some sort of empty “procedure” or whatever you mean by “ritual”. I get the sense that you believe these spiritual practices are empty of God’s love and grace. I think they are for the faithless. I myself went thru rituals with an empty heart for many years. The problem was not with the ritual, it was with my heart.

rosary

The Rosary can be considered a “ritual” prayer, because it it practiced in a similar way over and over. I am not sure if that is what you mean by ritual. Perhaps you believe that doing something the same way more than once, invalidates it? I would be curious to know why you think that God created so much ritual for the Israelites.

, calling the pope Holy Father,

Do you imagine this is a ritual, or a rule?

praying through Mary, etc.

You seem to feel that having those perfected forever in the faith available to help with their prayers and guidance is something objectionable. I don’t understand that at all. Scripture is clear that the effectual fervent prayre of the righteous avails much. These are forever guarded by Him, and can no longer be touched by sins.

Hey guan; just as an example of reading and understanding scripture, when you guanophore, read 2Samuel 14:14, what can you get from that verse, without saying something like," It depends on the context in which it was written. Just that verse, tell me how you interpret it!

Why would I WANT to read it outside of it’s context?

Why would I want to interpret it apart from what the HS has already revealed to the Church?

To me it is a precursor to the NT idea that God desires all to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. Salvation has always been by grace, through faith. Christ is the expiation for the world, and there is no name under heaven by which we may be saved. Christ is God’s “devised method” by which we can enter heaven.

 

[guanophore]

Yes but a study of history will show that absolutely no traditions outside of scripture can be traced to Christ.

Actually, my study of scripture taught me the opposite. When I set about to study history, I found that the Bible itself is a Sacred Tradition that existed outside of itself. It was the church, guided by the HS, that composed the table of contents for Scripture. This is one of the Sacred Traditions that goes back to Christ, who used the Alexandrian Septuagint, and taught His disciples to use it as well.

 There are no doctrinal statments or teachings that can be proven to come from Him outside of scripture.

Certainly when one denies the evidence that would provide the proof! It is like saying “prove the earth benefits from the radiance of the sun, but don’t use any light that you can see on earth to do so”.

 That is why it is all conjecture and guesswork trying to figure out which church contains the correct traditions.

I do apprecieate this conundrum that existes among our separated brethren.

 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.

I think you will find, if you are willing to investigate, that there is much more unity among these bodies than there is elsewhere in Christendom. Certainly there is still work to be done on unity, but those who have held to the Apostolic command to preserve the Traditions are closer to it.

  People will always attempt to attach themselves to Truth.

Really? what makes you say that? I think Jesus taught the opposite.

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.

You seem to be contradicitng yourself. The One True Church founded by Christ produced the Scripture. Why would we separate ourselves from her?

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.

No, they would not. The Gospel is to be received from those to whom it was committed. Unlike the Bereans, who nobly received this gospel with eagerness, Modern fundamentalists avoid the Source of the gospel appointed by Christ, and attempt to glean it on their own by extrapolating it from scripture. But scripture was never meant to be a compendium of the faith, so everyone comes up with a different idea.

 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. /.quote]

No, Divide. God showed Israel the Truth fromt he beginning. They floundered because they do what you do, which is ignore it, and try to figure it out on their own terms.
Rightlydivide;6541901:

 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.

See? You refuted your own arguement.

 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.

Indeed, there have always been wolves among the sheep. However, what you are saying is that the powerful Jesus of Revelation went off to sleep, and failed to guide His Church. If there is no evidence that “it got any better”, then you have no grounds to trust your bible, because that Church founded by Christ and guided by Him did that. If they were off the rails, as you suggest,then it has no validity.

.  You just came to a completely different conclusion about where to find that church.

Yes. You look into the pages of Scripture,and we look to Him.

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.

Indeed, HIs Church is a city on a hill, but that does not mean there are no corrupt influences. Because of the human element in the Church, there will always be weeds among the wheat.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Moses’ seat means the seat on which Moses sat, obviously. Moses sat on a seat from which he made known the Law. And yes, it is mentioned in Exodus.

Cristian B,

The chair of Moses is not mentioned anywhere in scriptures, other than Christ telling the people to observe and do whatsoever they tell you to do. It is an example of the ‘oral tradtion’.

There are other examples of the ‘oral tradtion’ in the New Testament. Look at Mark and Luke, neither of whom were eye witnesses to the ministry of Christ. Everything they wrote was something they ‘heard’. The author of Acts is the one who wrote about Christ’s words, ‘It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.’ That is not recorded by any other author of the New Testament.

Other examples of the ‘oral tradition’ are also found in Paul’s writings.

Paul wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

I provided you some information on Judaism and oral tradition, but you seemingly overlooked it as you don’t mention it at all. I am providing it once more with emphasis bolded on part of it.

**According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).**

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved.

Further proof of the validity of the oral tradition is found in Christ’s commands to the Apostles. He commanded them to go out and ‘teach’, or ‘preach’. He never commanded anyone to write anything down. At least it’s not recorded in the scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I found this a very interesting statement. It struck me that the Apostles had ONE FAITH, and that people who have left that ONE FAITH have found it expedient to create something esle called “my faith” that does not hold to the same values.

the fact that I do not accept certain sacraments anymore does not have anything to do with my lifestyle, but with theological differences.

I think you are an exception on this point. I think most people walk away from the Catholic faith out of ignorance, and the rest out of rebellion against the moral teachings. Of those, most of the objections arise from below the waist.

 

[guanophore]

So you have no traditions that can be proven to come from Christ or the Apostles. You do not.

I don’t think there are any that will meet your criteria for “proof”. You see, our faith is not a product of human scientific constructs, which is where “proof” comes from . Our faith was handed down to us from the Apostles. If you want scientific proof of this, I think it would be difficult. We believe what we have not seen by faith, not by proof. Certainly there are many scientific and historical “proofs” that give testimony to our faith, but since you do not accept the available evidence, you will not be pursuaded.

S

so this tradition I am supposed to accept is based upon what a particular church believes is true?

You appear to accept your bible, based upon that criteria.

Your Bible is 100% a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. Except that yours is most likely truncated, since Reformers removed some of the books used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Okay lets look at Revelation.
Candles
.
What was I supposed to see again?

Incense does appear in Revelation.

Now I am wondering what version of Scripture you actually have!

Why do you think incense was used in the Jewish Temple? Do you think God is opposed to incense?

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

This is true. the customs of the various communities with regard to dress is not a doctrine of the faith. Everyone wore robes, and it was a custom that was continued as the Church grew. Like in OT times, the successors inherited the robes of those who served before them. When the population stopped wearing robes, the custom continued in the Church.

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

That is hard to know, since you have not provided your liturgy.

 

[guanophore]

As far as your hair comment, your church is able to ignore something because of binding and loosing?

No, the Catholic Church does not “ignore” any Scripture. However, Scripture is understood within the light of apsotlic teaching, which is why we understand it differently from those of you that were separated from this during the Reformation.

There are some parts of scripture that are references to cultural practices, such as women cutting or covering their hair. There are some parts that are references to Apostolic instruction, and cannot be changed, no matter what the cultural practices.

This is the difference between a small “t” tradition (human custom) and a large “T” Tradition (from the Apostles)

Why bring anything else up?

Because you obviously cannot tell the difference between the two. I can see why you would have difficulty, since you are separated from the apostolic succession where this information is preserved infallibly by God in the Church.

When you do not do it, its an example of being able to change things.

Yes. Human customs can be changed, doctrine cannot.

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.

There are no parts of the Divine Revelation that are “no longer applicable”. How they are applied is the duty of the Church to discern, preserve, and teach. That is part of what it means by feeding and caring for the sheep.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Surely you do not think this will have much influence, do you? We know that your spiritual tradition was separated from the Teaching of the Apostles 500 years ago, and has been diverging further and further ever since. You are so far from the Church of the Early Fathers that you don’t even recognize it. You think Catholics “added” rather than the Reformers subtracting!

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?

Yes, you are welcome here in these dialogues. We recognize that you believe the truncated version of Christianity that you have derived from the pages does have enough eternal truth in it that God can use it for His glory.

Although it is sad to see our separated brethren settle for only part of what God intended, part is better than none!