I'm hung up on Mary.

[Erick_Ybarra]

I do not believe that scripture interprets itself. And my interpretation of scripture is either right or wrong, there is always that possibility, just like it is physically possible for every human being to die right now. Just because the possibility is there does not mean everyone is going to die right now. Conversley just because everyones interpretation of scripture is fallible doesn’t mean we can’t understand it until someone who is infallible comes and interprets the scripture. Just because the eunuch didn’t understand it doesnt mean that will always be the case. In fact most cases show that Paul had to argue from scripture that Jesus was the christ. The bereans had to search the scriptures? Why? Because human reasoning has never been murdered with God. Even though the gospel is a mystery, it is still compatible to the normal senses when God opens the eyes.

I believe that the persons who preserve the pure and undefiled teaching of the apostles, whether by word or deed, are those who have the full truth. In most cases this doesn’t happen, as we can see with Protestantism. You need to realize that even Judaism, God’s own son whom he redeemed, were not infallible. You had the sadducces, Pharisees, essences, Qumran, more conservative Jews in Galilee, etc etc. Jesus appeared to the mainline people who dealt with the temple. They were extremely fallible. Jesus rebuked many people and always exalted scripture as gods word. Even if he said something new, the old bore witness.

What has happened is, in an effort to control people, the roman catholic church has argued not just that they have preserved the pure gospel better than any other, but that their interpretation of scripture, down to the smallest detail, is infallible. Not even allowing for a single miss of point. Well what happens is eventually this principle is disproven and then people leave because the control is abusive.

The roman catholic church h would enjoy much more unity among the whole world if they just read the scripture and judged their tradition accordingly. For their tradition is at points late coming, having almost nothing to do with the teaching handed to the apostles by christ Jesus.

God building his church nonetheless, and the same sin of 1 cor 1-2 division is alive today as it was then, and it’s a down right shame. Even amongst catholics. Out of all the catholics I know, they all believe something different. Doesn’t matter if you all hold to 1 catechism, the human beings who are living inside all believe something different. It is rare to find the catholic church unified in its particulars. The evidence of that is 5 years of door to door evangelism, talking to one priest after the next, and seeing the evolution of catholicbdoctrine from the earliest days on. Only if the early father could have still been here to watch how everything panned out until now.

 

[Erich]

Conversely just because everyones interpretation of scripture is fallible doesn’t mean we can’t understand it until someone who is infallible comes and interprets the scripture. Just because the eunuch didn’t understand it doesnt mean that will always be the case. In fact most cases show that Paul had to argue from scripture that Jesus was the christ. The bereans had to search the scriptures? Why? Because human reasoning has never been murdered with God. Even though the gospel is a mystery, it is still compatible to the normal senses when God opens the eyes.

You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura, to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They say that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptura, because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. But, again, the problem is that nowhere does this verse say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone - they did not practice Sola Scriptura - they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And neither did the early Christians.

What was going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses - from the Old Testament - that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!

Plus, the fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures; which, if they were believers in Sola Scriptura, seems to be a pretty odd thing.

Plus, if this verse is a “proof” of Sola Scriptura then you again have the same problem that has been mentioned elsewhere - the Bereans were Jews and the only scriptures they had were the Old Testament scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 “proves” Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola Old Testament Scriptura.

Furthermore, the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works against the Sola Scriptura position. One of the necessary corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual private interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves - without answering to any outside authority - in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.

Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures, obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. They needed a guide, Paul, to correctly interpret Scripture for them. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual private interpretation of Scripture, obviously isn’t supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans.

 

[pablope]

I know of 1 error. The catechism teaches that 1 peter 1:7 teaches purgatory where Peter is clearly referring to present trials

Erick…I think you may have the wrong passage…are you talking instead of 1peter3…beginning in v17?..17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—

From Scott Hahn…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html

What’s he talking about? Well, almost all commentators see this as in continuity with the Hebrew idea of sheol. “But made alive in the spirit in which He went and preached to the spirits in prison who formerly did not obey when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark in which only a few, that is, eight persons were saved through water.” Now, somebody could say, “Well, these people are only being preached to, to secure their damnation and finalize it.” Well that’s certainly a gratuitous reading that’s not suggested in the text. What is suggested in the text from the previous verse, is we’re talking about Christ the righteous dying for the unrighteous that He might bring us to God.

So he goes on to talk about the unrighteous who are in prison, but who are in prison for unrighteousness that we might not consider mortal. It’s unrighteousness, but it is not the kind of sin that is full-fledged and completely rationally chosen in rebellion, full scale rebellion against God. This is something perhaps quite different. At any rate, we have something that is neither hell nor heaven which Christ entered and then exited and, as the early Church firmly believed throughout the Church, Christ descended into hades. That’s the term, we translate it hell, but we sometimes mislead people — He descended into hades and then He ascended into heaven leading captivity captive, as Ephesians 4 says.

In other words leading those who had been captive in prison for ages, the righteous of the Old Testament, in a train of glory up to heaven. There’s an apocryphal work that some tried to slip into the New Testament. It didn’t really get far but it’s called the Gospel of Nicodemus in which this teaching is just so obviously assumed, it reflects a common understanding of the early Church, even if it is not in a book that we would want to include in scripture.

 

[Erich]

I believe that the persons who preserve the pure and undefiled teaching of the apostles, whether by word or deed, are those who have the full truth.

Who are these “persons who preserve the pure and undefiled teaching of the apostles”? And how, exactly, is anyone supposed to be able to identify them?

Either Jesus founded more than one church, Jesus founded an invisible and abstract church in which everyone who accepts Jesus belongs to this church, or He founded one Church, which is 2,000 years old, which is visible, holds that doctrine matters, and has the direct authority of Jesus Christ himself. We can both agree that Jesus did not found more than one Church. But I am glad you see the possibility of an invisible and universal (I substituted that word for “abstract”) Church in which everyone who follows (I substituted that word for “accepts”) Jesus belongs to his Church. This Church is 2000 years old and has the direct authority that Christ himself has granted it.

What has happened is, in an effort to control people, the roman catholic church has argued not just that they have preserved the pure gospel better than any other, but that their interpretation of scripture, down to the smallest detail, is infallible. Not even allowing for a single miss of point. Well what happens is eventually this principle is disproven and then people leave because the control is abusive.

No, what has happened is, many, many “religious leaders” (not to mention people in the pews), because of their pride, feel that they have the most accurate interpretation of the Scriptures. Their interpretations are infallible, so they think (although they won’t usually say that – in fact they will usually deny that – but their actions certainly indicate they believe as much). They need not submit to any authority in regards to the interpretation of Scripture other than themselves. This pride actually leads to ignorance and to the twisting of the Scriptures. They leave because, as Catholics, they were actually very ignorant of Catholic teaching and that now, as Protestants, they have rejected the true Church founded by Christ and the truth of its teaching. They need lots of prayers so that the scales may fall from their eyes.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura, to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They say that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptura, because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. But, again, the problem is that nowhere does this verse say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone - they did not practice Sola Scriptura - they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And neither did the early Christians.

What was going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses - from the Old Testament - that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!

Plus, the fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures; which, if they were believers in Sola Scriptura, seems to be a pretty odd thing.

Plus, if this verse is a “proof” of Sola Scriptura then you again have the same problem that has been mentioned elsewhere - the Bereans were Jews and the only scriptures they had were the Old Testament scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 “proves” Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola Old Testament Scriptura.

Furthermore, the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works against the Sola Scriptura position. One of the necessary corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual private interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves - without answering to any outside authority - in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.

Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures, obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. They needed a guide, Paul, to correctly interpret Scripture for them. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual private interpretation of Scripture, obviously isn’t supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans.

I’m gonna respond in more detail in a few, but whoever said that I was arguing for the bible alone? Sola scriptural has been one of the most reductionistic principles in history.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura, to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They say that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptura, because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. But, again, the problem is that nowhere does this verse say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone - they did not practice Sola Scriptura - they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And neither did the early Christians.

What was going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses - from the Old Testament - that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scriptures to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!

Plus, the fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures; which, if they were believers in Sola Scriptura, seems to be a pretty odd thing.

Plus, if this verse is a “proof” of Sola Scriptura then you again have the same problem that has been mentioned elsewhere - the Bereans were Jews and the only scriptures they had were the Old Testament scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 “proves” Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola Old Testament Scriptura.

Furthermore, the fact that the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works against the Sola Scriptura position. One of the necessary corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual private interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves - without answering to any outside authority - in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.

Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures, obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. They needed a guide, Paul, to correctly interpret Scripture for them. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual private interpretation of Scripture, obviously isn’t supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans.

Yes I agree. The bereans do not show any hint of solar scriptura. Wharves get from the berea experience is that the human mind is allowed to verify truths. They obviously would not believe Paul or would have had a hard time( just like any other Jew would have slandered the Christians for teaching new and contrary doctrine to moses) belieiving Paul had the scriptures showed no hint of what he was preaching. That is all that is there. The principle of verification. It was there in peters sermon in acts 2 by the appeal to an empty tomb, the testimony of miracles from Jesus ands the disciples, the witness if his resurrection, and some testimony from the holy scripture.

Had peter arrived and said God has chosen us as the infallible interpreters of Gods word, he who listens to us listens to God he who does not does not listen to God. We can bind and loose forgive and remit and we have no respect for questions or insubmission, you either submit or you are excluded.

God always has this principal at work. Even with moses

 

[Erich]

I’m gonna respond in more detail in a few, but whoever said that I was arguing for the bible alone? Sola scriptural has been one of the most reductionistic principles in history.

You come from a Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist background… which usually goes hand-in-hand with a belief in Sola Scriptura. That said, your recognition that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical is a step in the right direction. So, too, would be a recognition that “private interpretation of Scipture” is just as unworkable.

Had peter arrived and said God has chosen us as the infallible interpreters of Gods word, he who listens to us listens to God he who does not does not listen to God. We can bind and loose forgive and remit and we have no respect for questions or insubmission, you either submit or you are excluded.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?
Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?
Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?
Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?
In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?

While it appears that we might be drifting somewhat from the “I’m hung up on Mary” subject of the thread, all these questions are related.

 

[TimothyH]

Yes I agree. The bereans do not show any hint of solar scriptura. Wharves get from the berea experience is that the human mind is allowed to verify truths. They obviously would not believe Paul or would have had a hard time( just like any other Jew would have slandered the Christians for teaching new and contrary doctrine to moses) belieiving Paul had the scriptures showed no hint of what he was preaching. That is all that is there. The principle of verification. It was there in peters sermon in acts 2 by the appeal to an empty tomb, the testimony of miracles from Jesus ands the disciples, the witness if his resurrection, and some testimony from the holy scripture.

Had peter arrived and said God has chosen us as the infallible interpreters of Gods word, he who listens to us listens to God he who does not does not listen to God. We can bind and loose forgive and remit and we have no respect for questions or insubmission, you either submit or you are excluded.

God always has this principal at work. Even with moses

The Apostles have always insisted that they and their successors have been entrusted with the truth and that the truth with which they were entrusted was protected by the Holy Spirit.

Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (2 Timothy 1:13-14)

The Apostles however, never insisted that their words shouldn’t be verified.

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni’ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

The people who were preached to were encouraged, even expected, to confirm that what they were told was correct by searching the Torah and the writings of the prophets. This was not seen by the Apostles as an insult but they welcomed it, confident that their teaching would be confirmed as being of divine origin.

It was not an all or nothing proposition for them. They knew that their teaching was divine, that they were protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit, and they welcomed confirmation of that fact through examination of the Scriptures.

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The apostles were infallible in that nothing they taught lead to extreme error which would frofeit ones eternal salvation. Peter recognized that Paul’s epistles were hard to understand and can be twisted to their own destruction. Does this mean that if they minsunderstand him on one word of one sentence that they have automatically twistedbto destruction. None but Paul himself knows entirely in full detail what he wrote. Some can misunderstand him but maintain the essentials of the faith, and then hold to doubtful things over which disputes do not avail to godliness. Same with the apostles.

If purgatory or Mary are as the catholics see it, it is not something based much on scripture.

 

[sambos671]

The apostles were infallible in that nothing they taught lead to extreme error which would frofeit ones eternal salvation. Peter recognized that Paul’s epistles were hard to understand and can be twisted to their own destruction. Does this mean that if they minsunderstand him on one word of one sentence that they have automatically twistedbto destruction. None but Paul himself knows entirely in full detail what he wrote. Some can misunderstand him but maintain the essentials of the faith, and then hold to doubtful things over which disputes do not avail to godliness. Same with the apostles.

If purgatory or Mary are as the catholics see it, it is not something based much on scripture.

Have you read my post? Here It might help a little.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Who are these “persons who preserve the pure and undefiled teaching of the apostles”? And how, exactly, is anyone supposed to be able to identify them?

Either Jesus founded more than one church, Jesus founded an invisible and abstract church in which everyone who accepts Jesus belongs to this church, or He founded one Church, which is 2,000 years old, which is visible, holds that doctrine matters, and has the direct authority of Jesus Christ himself. We can both agree that Jesus did not found more than one Church. But I am glad you see the possibility of an invisible and universal (I substituted that word for “abstract”) Church in which everyone who follows (I substituted that word for “accepts”) Jesus belongs to his Church. This Church is 2000 years old and has the direct authority that Christ himself has granted it.

No, what has happened is, many, many “religious leaders” (not to mention people in the pews), because of their pride, feel that they have the most accurate interpretation of the Scriptures. Their interpretations are infallible, so they think (although they won’t usually say that – in fact they will usually deny that – but their actions certainly indicate they believe as much). They need not submit to any authority in regards to the interpretation of Scripture other than themselves. This pride actually leads to ignorance and to the twisting of the Scriptures. They leave because, as Catholics, they were actually very ignorant of Catholic teaching and that now, as Protestants, they have rejected the true Church founded by Christ and the truth of its teaching. They need lots of prayers so that the scales may fall from their eyes.

In my experience, coming from a catholic upbringing, every catholic in my family, who I knew, friends of family etc,etc have had very little interest in Jesus Christ. I have seen drug attics, people addicted to pornography, adultery, drunkenness, greed, sexual immorality, deceit, anger, lukewarmness, and straight ungodly slave to sin lives be changed from the inside to being kind, faithful, righteous, loving, sober, and truthful people from the heart. And in my experience of Protestantism, I saw thus plenty. I’ve seen Christians excommunicated for failing to live a repentant lifestyle and I’ve seen people who worship the lord day and night, who would die for the world. Whereas in Catholicism I’ve seen people who have a hohum attitude about Christ, no faithful sharing of Christs broken body to the lost world, people who are violent and so enslaved to sin that they think its OK. So protestants who are enslaved to christ who would die for the gospel need more prayers than a catholic who lives in sin and has no love for christ?

Maybe if I see this inbcatholicism I would think different. But to this day my huge family are drunks, yet all go to mass and are friends with the priest. Christ is angry at that.

This does not alleviate the guilt of all the schismatics and heretics in the world. But you know what, you had heretics back in the day and so now. In fact Paul said they would come out from among the church and he told Timothy to gaurd the faith because of the possibility if falling away as Paul himself saw in his own co-workers whom he delivered tobsatan or if they loved this present world.

 

[TimothyH]

The apostles were infallible in that nothing they taught lead to extreme error which would frofeit ones eternal salvation. Peter recognized that Paul’s epistles were hard to understand and can be twisted to their own destruction. Does this mean that if they minsunderstand him on one word of one sentence that they have automatically twistedbto destruction. None but Paul himself knows entirely in full detail what he wrote. Some can misunderstand him but maintain the essentials of the faith, and then hold to doubtful things over which disputes do not avail to godliness. Same with the apostles.

If purgatory or Mary are as the catholics see it, it is not something based much on scripture.

Infallibly interpeting what Paul and all the other authors of Scripture wrote is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to the teaching office of the Church.

“None but Paul” understahnd entirely in full detail what he wrote… with the exception of God and the Church God created for that exact purpose - interpeting what Paul and the other authors wrote.

The Church does not misunderstand scripture. The Church teaches from it infalliby.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

If purgatory or Mary are as the catholics see it, it is not something based much on scripture.

I wrote a paper on the Biblical basis for belief in Puragory. You can download it here. In it, I explain how Catholics have come to understand that a theology with only Heaven and Hell makes absolutely no sense. I hope you read it.

You can read it online if you prefer.

**The Biblical Basis for Belief in Purgatory: Part 1

The Biblical Basis for Belief in Purgatory: Part 2

The Biblical Basis for Belief in Purgatory: Part 3**

-Tim-

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Infallibly interpeting what Paul and all the other authors of Scripture wrote is a gift of the Holy Spirit given to the teaching office of the Church.

“None but Paul” understahnd entirely in full detail what he wrote… with the exception of God and the Church God created for that exact purpose - interpeting what Paul and the other authors wrote.

The Church does not misunderstand scripture. The Church teaches from it infalliby.

-Tim-

They teach from it and do not teach in such a way as to destroy the hearers.
This does not mean that every little thing the church interprets is true.

What happens when two catholics interpret a verse differently?

 

[johnnyjones]

I wrote a paper on the Biblical basis for belief in Puragory. You can download it here. In it, I explain how Catholics have come to understand that a theology with only Heaven and Hell makes absolutely no sense. I hope you read it.

You can read it online if you prefer.

The Biblical Basis for Belief in Purgatory: Part 1

The Biblical Basis for Belief in Purgatory: Part 2

The Biblical Basis for Belief in Purgatory: Part 3

-Tim-

I read your exposition on puratory and found it excellent. Purgatory is a doctrine more catholics and those seeking answers need to look more closely at. Eternity is only a hearbeat away.

 

[johnnyjones]

They teach from it and do not teach in such a way as to destroy the hearers.
This does not mean that every little thing the church interprets is true.

What happens when two catholics interpret a verse differently?

Two Catholics may render an opionion but the verse in question for ultimate clarity is run through the filter of the final authority, that being the church.

Look at the mega denominations in Protestantism with it’s varying interpretations, often there are contradictory issues and few know what is “true”.

 

[pablope]

They teach from it and do not teach in such a way as to destroy the hearers.
This does not mean that every little thing the church interprets is true.

What happens when two catholics interpret a verse differently?

We defer to the Church…acting through the Magisterium.

 

[Erich]

So protestants who are enslaved to christ who would die for the gospel need more prayers than a catholic who lives in sin and has no love for christ?

Who ever said anything like that? Not I.

The apostles were infallible in that nothing they taught lead to extreme error which would frofeit ones eternal salvation.

What about the other questions?

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?
Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?
Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no? Yes
Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?
In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?

If purgatory or Mary are as the catholics see it, it is not something based much on scripture.

There’s plenty of Scriptural basis for “purgatory and Mary as Catholics see it” but you refuse to see it.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Look if you are looking for the logical deduction of the fact that apostolic succession, infallibility, church’s visibility, petrine dynastic succession, that christ would be with his people even to the end of the age, that the spirit would not leave the body as orphans, that bishops make present apostolic authority, etc, etc I understand this.

Ya know if we went by the ancient traditions, protestants are schismatics and fall under the damnation of Romans 16. Since catholics have accepted seperated brethren, have they not done something no catholic ancestor would have done? If you are willing to allow the spirit of truth to be at work in Protestantism then why are you not open to the fact that maybe the protestants are right about ‘‘something’’ while wrong about most???

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What’s interesting is I have seen more authority and church discipline practiced in Protestantism than in Catholicism.

Paul taught to purge out unrepentant sinners from the body of christ. 1 Corinthians 5. My family are drunks and they always take communion.

And it isn’t just to deny them from lords supperbbut from the fellowship altogether.