It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[qui_est_ce]

The problem some Protestants on this thread have is their knowledge of Christian history begins in 324 when Constantine decriminalized Christianity.

To which Church was St. Ignatius of Antioch referring when he said in his letter to the Smyrneans (approx 100 AD):

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[RedBert]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbert
*Too funny : if you didn’t know : Protestants look at that verse and see Catholics as modern day Pharisees ( and the Nicolaitans from Revelation) *

**
So who is correct and why?**--------------------

Technically neither!
When Jesus was talking the Pharisees he was actually talking to the …Pharisees.

The point is whether we can apply those comments to any present day situations.
It has nothing to do with Biblical interpretation (we all know Jesus was talking to the Pharisees) it has to do with what lessons YOU can learn from it Where YOU can apply what Jesus said to what you see today.

Do we see a parallel situation today?

There is not an exact right and wrong here.

The Bible is filled specific issues that we can apply to general situations

It’s called a lesson.

 

[Philthy]

Really good books, like the Republic, Summa Theo., Confessions, Metaphysics, Inferno, etc. can answer questions. It takes time to learn, but good books are capable of answering responses to themselves. If Dante can manage this, why wouldn’t God be able to?

Oh, I dont disagree that books are capable of being self explanatory, I am simply saying that the NT, in particular, is not such a book. It would appear that God intended the OT law (Leviticus/Deuteronomy) to be clearly articulated as an instruction manual. The NT simply does not follow this mode. Need proof? The history of churches that operate under the assumption that the Bible is the rule of faith (Reformation churches) prove this point beautifully. So it is not a question of *whether *God could accomplish an instruction manual, its a question of why he didnt with the NT. The answer from the Catholic perspective IMHO is that he didnt write an instruction manual because He established a Church guided by the Holy Spirit instead.

Blessings!

 

[RedBert]

The problem some Protestants on this thread have is their knowledge of Christian history begins in 324 when Constantine decriminalized Christianity.

.

The problem some Catholics think that the first century catholic church has anything to do with the Catholic Church of today.

BTW :In the Book of Acts they called themselves the followers of “The Way”

Remindes me of a discussion I had with an un-churched husband who had married into a Catholic family: After I had metioned the Jesus was a Jew: he stated that he thought Jesus was Catholic…

Yes I know Catholics don’t say that ,

but I have seen in this thread where it was stated that the Apostles were Catholic

 

[Philthy]

While I have not read that specific book : I do seek out different opinions and can at least understand either side of most debates. I have read (and studied) the Bible , and I can see how others can reach a conclusion different than mine on many doctrines.

Your honesty is refreshing!

But it would be one thing to say I don’t agree with someone’s view and…quite another to say… “I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea” …And that is what the OP claimed.

I think the similarities outweigh the differences. You read Scripture and come to conclusions on doctrine that contradict the conclusions of others who read Scripture. How is that different when the doctrine we are discussing is Sola Scriptura? You see it and he doesnt. Is it maybe more the way he phrased it? Would it have been better for him to have said, “I can understand why you might be led to conclude SS based on verses X, Y and Z, but I have researched this and have come to the opposite conclusion.”?

Blessings!

 

[RedBert]

you asked: this is not to derail this thread: and I won’t debate it here: but it several places the Bible states that here is no one without sin, not one. and who ever says they have not sinned is a liar. That seems to in conlict with a specific CC doctrine.

So therefore I reject any doctrine that declares any human (other than God in the flesh ) is sinless

 

[RedBert]

Your honesty is refreshing!

I think the similarities outweigh the differences. You read Scripture and come to conclusions on doctrine that contradict the conclusions of others who read Scripture. How is that different when the doctrine we are discussing is Sola Scriptura? You see it and he doesnt. Is it maybe more the way he phrased it? Would it have been better for him to have said, “I can understand why you might be led to conclude SS based on verses X, Y and Z, but I have researched this and have come to the opposite conclusion.”?
Blessings!

YES YES YES and YES that changes every thing!

Thank you!

btw : thats not the first time I stated that in this thread

But i don’think ChurchMilitant (the OPer would concede that)

 

[guanophore]

Do you or do you not believe the Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God?

Yes. This is one of the teachings of the Catholic Church that our separated brethren have retained.

If you do believe it is, then it is INFALLIBLE because its God’s very Word…“God-Breathed”. If you need to have it spelled out in the Bible that the very words in this Holy Book is inspired and perfect, then how can you claim to be a true Christian?

You are drawing a false conclusion, Jacob. The fact that teh Bible is God Breathed, inspired,and inerrant does not equate to infallibilty. You see, infallibility is a charism that requires elements that Scripture does not posess. Catholics have so much respect for Scripture that we do not try to assign qualities to it that it was never meant to posess.

This is what the apostle Paul said: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess. 3:14). Paul recognized that what he wrote was scripture. Peter also said this. Paul’s epistles were spread and read in the churches. These churches accepted them as scripture.

Yes, and they are authoritative to the extent that they are not removed from the Apostolic Authority that penned them. When that relationship is severed, the reader puts himself in the position of authority that was given by God to the Apostles, and to their successors, the bishops.

Since God’s word is truth and Jesus is the very Word, then for one to proclaim it as such does NOT mean one is infallible.

You are right, but it is an infallibile proclamation. It seems that you have a misunderstanding abou tthe gift.

You give man power or authority which man does not have.

No. All authority comes from God. Man has authority because God gave it to him. That is why He said “all authority is given…go therefore”. He sent them in His authority.

Its the Holy Spirit who reveals these Truth to the Christian. The Holy Spirit is infallible, not you or I or anybody.

I agree. The gift of infallibility was given to the Church, not to any one man. It comes from the HS.

The pope may claim he can speak infallibly but he himself is not infallible.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Just as the Apostles were not infallible, yet were able to create Scripture.

If he recognizes God’s word as truth, it is because the Holy Spirit reveals it. The pope does not have a monopoly on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is given to all born-again believers in Jesus Christ.

Yes, the HS does reveal the Truth. No one ever claimed the Pope has a monopoly on the HS. However, we do know that the HS is not going to reveal a “truth” to “all born again believers” that contradicts what He has already revealed to the Church.

 

[joe370]

**

joe370;5968046:

you asked: this is not to derail this thread: and I won’t debate it here: but it several places the Bible states that here is no one without sin, not one. and who ever says they have not sinned is a liar.

Now that is a red herring. Here I am trying to understand your perspective and you do this. The CC believes that there is no one without sin, not one, in the CC or any church for that matter, and whoever says they have not sinned is a liar. What does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you could PM me and let me know which CC teachings (besides your belief that the Immaculate Conception is contradictory) -contradict Sacred Scripture, when you get the chance?

** That seems to in conlict with a specific CC doctrine.
**

IC doctrine…Understood.

So therefore I reject any doctrine that declares any human (other than God in the flesh ) is sinless.

Well, that’s just one doctrine: the Immaculate conception of Gods blessed mother Mary. I do not believe that God would become one with sinful flesh, for 9 months. For 9 months Mary’s blood system passed oxygen, glucose, CO2, etc, to Jesus’ blood system, and God, in my opinion, would never allow these 2 systems to commingle, unless Mary was saved prior to her birth, or do you think that God would allow this union between His Son and a sinner? Surely God could have created Jesus’ mother Mary, immaculately, as He did with Adam and Eve, right? But this is off topic, so I digress.**

 

[Philthy]

YES YES YES and YES that changes every thing!
Thank you!
btw : thats not the first time I stated that in this thread
But i don’think ChurchMilitant (the OPer would concede that)

I think that CM would be willing to admit it, but I think it was phrased the way it was partially because we are on an apologetics forum. The posting tends to be more edgy and provocative. If your feelings are hurt - which I repeatedly sense in your responses - or you are led to judge others (“I dont think CM …would concede that”) based on the way posting is infuenced by the sub-forum you are in, be sure to stay away from the Non-Catholic Forum as all decorum is often checked at the door! CM is a convert from Protestantism, so he undoubtedly held the doctrine of SS very near and dear for many years and, therefore, cannot be completely insensitive to those who have yet grasped what he believes he has grasped.

Blessings!

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Pope Pius X condemned the Modernistic proposition : ‘Not everything that St Paul narrates of the institution of the Eucharist need be taken as historical.’

There is credibility in what is written in the Bible; Dogmatic Theology must be well grounded.
Argument is often over interpretation.

 

[joe370]

The problem some Protestants on this thread have is their knowledge of Christian history begins in 324 when Constantine decriminalized Christianity.

To which Church was St. Ignatius of Antioch referring when he said in his letter to the Smyrneans (approx 100 AD):

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. **It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

The correct historical answer is: the Catholic Church, but, the non-Catholic answer will be either:

1. The catholic church, small c, encompassing all churches (except the CC of course) - stemming from the 16th century reformation…

Or

1. The church called the way, or the church, which traversed the first 5 centuries alongside the Catholic church, and continued to do so for the next 11 centuries, at which point the Protestant reformation, (all offshoots of the CC) - ensued, leading to all of the man-made non-Catholic churches in the world today, built on the foundation of the 16th century Protestant reformation as opposed to the foundation of the 1st century Apostles and Prophets, to which Jesus is the Divine Cornerstone, which begs the obvious question, to which no one will answer: where is the original church (which did not codify the bible) - that existed since Pentecost, that spanned the centuries alongside the reputed 4th century man-made Catholic Church (which codified the bible) - as well as all of the man-made Protestant churches?

I know, it makes no sense to me either…

 

[Lampo]

but I have seen in this thread where it was stated that the Apostles were Catholic

You don’t agree that the first Pope (Saint Peter) of the Catholic Church was Catholic?

 

[RedBert]

You don’t agree that the first Pope (Saint Peter) of the Catholic Church was Catholic?

you gotta know the protestant anwser to that, so why ask?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbert
*Too funny : if you didn’t know : Protestants look at that verse and see Catholics as modern day Pharisees ( and the Nicolaitans from Revelation) *

**
So who is correct and why?**--------------------

Technically neither!

There is not an exact right and wrong here.

The Bible is filled specific issues that we can apply to general situations

It’s called a lesson.

Yet you say:

*Too funny : if you didn’t know : Protestants look at that verse and see Catholics as modern day Pharisees ( and the Nicolaitans from Revelation) *

So, I ask, who is correct and why? What is the “lesson” to which you refer?

There is not an exact right and wrong here.

:dts:
Christ is very specific about what is right and wrong.

 

[qui_est_ce]

you gotta know the protestant anwser to that, so why ask?

So who is the second Pope?

 

[Philthy]

you gotta know the protestant anwser to that, so why ask?

Do you believe John the Apostle was part of the Catholic Church? I know you don’t, of course, but my asking relates to the following:
St Ignatious - one of his disciples - has the oldest surviving use of the word “Catholic Church” that we have in his Letter to the Smyrneans (ca 90 AD). “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatious of Antioch
You can read the whole thing here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Do you believe he was part of the Catholic Church?
Do you really believe that St Ignatious - a martyr for the faith - had a substantially different faith than the Apostle John who discipled him?

C’mon big guy - give some more honest answers here …I wont ridicule you. How do you reconcile this?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Catholic with a big C or catholic with a small c?
It wasn’t until the Protestants started protesting (that’s where they get there name from) that there was seen to be any need to add ‘Roman’ as a prefix to Catholic to differentiate.
Roman, i.e. following the ‘Roman rite’ of the liturgy.

There are other denominations who share the name ‘catholic’.

I think it an injustice to think every time one reads or hears the word ‘catholic’ it refers to those of the Roman rite.

 

[nuntym]

I have to agree with Redbert and JacobG. You guys don’t like our answers no matter what source we get them from. We can give you the Scriptures but you use the excuse that the scriptures are not your ultimate authority so you throw out what we say! You ask for links and sources, more links and sources, then find fault with every one of them. You complain the source is inaccurate, the author is unreliable, the source is “anti-catholic.” We spend the time to answer your myriad questions and you cry: “Why don’t you answer the questions!?”

Uhm, isn’t that the hint for you guys?

It is not that we don’t like your answers, “no matter what source” you get them from, it is just that we have proven to you time and again that there is no any other source of infallible teachings aside from the Catholic Church.

When you give us Scriptures to back up your arguments, we do not “excuse that the scriptures are not your ultimate authority so you throw out what we say,” we actually refute you all with our own knowledge of Scripture, because Scripture backs up the Catholic Church.

When you give us links and sources, we find fault with every one of them, for they really HAVE faults in them!

We accuse you of not answering questions, because frankly, from all my readings and dealings in this thread, you really cannot answer the questions! And if you really cannot answer the questions, do not complain, but accept that you cannot answer them.

The truth is, if you don’t like our answer, you accuse us of being dishonest or unable to answer because we are not catholic. If it doesn’t jive with your beliefs, you discredit the source and defame the person who quoted the source in his post…

Oh? Where is an instance of this? Can anyone show us here?

 

[RedBert]

So who is the second Pope?

Just to clarify the obvious:

Protestants don’t ascept
the Peter is the Rock interpretation
the doctrine of Apostolic Succession
the doctrine of Papal / CC infallibility
Salvation only exsists in the CC

not starting a red herring argument

The point being made is that using these doctrines to “prove” a point with a Protestant doesn’t work

In the same way when Paul says “all of Israel is not Israel” (God’s chosen) many Protestants see that Catholic Church has move drastically away from the first century roots of Christainity