It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[yankee_drifter]

You don’t like the simple answer:

You don’t like the copy n paste with detailed answers

You label any other views as lies:

If you really “need” to know you can google “did the catholic church give us the bible”
as well has any one else.

Here where the rub is: you can’t deal with evangelical , fundamental Christians who found salvation outside of your Catholic Church.

The main point I’m making is that there are millions who declare Christ as their LORD and Savior and absolutely reject the “unique” doctrines of Catholics: and that doesn’t make any sense to you.

Poll after poll shows that church going Protestants are more likely than church going Catholics to believe int essentials of the faith , such a Jesus is Son of God , born of Virgin and rose from the dead.

Poll after poll shows that church going Protestants are more likely than church going Catholics to be INTOLARENT of abortion , divorce, or adultery.

Poll after poll Catholics routinely reject the of Doctrine Papal infallibility or transubstantiation and you are critical if some Protestants disagree on infant vs believers baptisms.

Are different beliefs under one roof really more acceptable than different beliefs under different roofs?

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!?” 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…

 

[Lampo]

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.

Please give us the name of the person that founded the Catholic Church.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Red, Jacob, Yankee, I think the following need to be answered before we can continue:

To which Church did Pope St. Damasius I belong?

• To which Church did St. Augustine belong when he said "“I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church.”

• St. Augustine of Hippo

• Who told St Jerome which books to put in the Bible?
• Which books made up the Canon of the Bible until 1520?
• To which Church did Martin Luther refer when he wrote, "Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., "
• To which Church did Martin Luther refer when he wrote:
  “We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have Horeceived ly Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

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?

 

[Philthy]

You don’t like the simple answer:

 

[PEPCIS]

"JacobG:

The RCC accomplished this [cannonization of Scripture]??

Here’s my quote, please do your level best to deal specifically with what I said, OK? I choose my words very carefully to be explicit in my communication. Here’s what I said:

Using the term RCC when discussing canonicity introduces unnecessary ambiguities - the term Catholic Church is more accurate and appropriate. The term RCC did [not] appear until the 16th century - it is another invention of the Reformation.

I guess this is where Catholics derive the necessary ambiguities for the defense of their beliefs, all the while decrying the “ambiguities” that they claim others create.

You’re right, Philthy, words do have to be carefully chosen. But thoughts that are promulgated must be carefully chosen as well. In this subject (as with all controversies), “ambiguities” are nothing more than deliberately created obfuscations to detract from the main point of the debate.

In this specific retort by JacobG, he obviously did not hold to the oft-stated claim by Catholics that it was the organized Catholic Church which was responsible for the cannonization of Scripture. JacobG has proffered some interesting facts to support his contention that it was not the official Catholic Church meeting at the Council of Hippo, but an aggregation of North African Pastors.

You’ve created a red herring by ignoring this fact, and instead focusing in on his use of the term “RCC.”

First, who ever said the Council of Hippo was a Roman Catholic council. It consisted only of North African pastors. Rome had nothing to do with it.

Philthy:

All Christians that met for councils were Catholic in this point in history.

I suppose that you can say that by default, all Christians were “catholic”, but this is assuming that all Christians understood the present day conflict between Protestants and Catholics - that is clearly not the case.

Today’s Catholic Church is not the same Catholic Church of the 1st century, because it has morphed into a completely different entity. This is why the Reformers felt it necessary to break off from this alien concept of the Christian Church which Christ founded.

Philthy:

If you doubt [that all christians in the 3rd Century were Catholic], please suggest what other church they belonged to with evidence to support that claim.

There was no other church other than the one that Jesus Christ founded. History shows that we referred to this church as the “Catholic” church because of the meaning of the word, “catholic” (UNIVERSAL), not because it describes the present day Catholic Church.

Philthy:

Wasnt St Augustine the Bishop of Hippo at the time?

No.

Philthy:

He was a Bishop in the Catholic Church.

Yes, from 396 on, I believe.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Philthy;5964813:

….The problem is that most Catholics are Biblically illiterate, although our faith is based on deep Biblical understanding

.

I don’t know about “most” Catholics. In my parish, we have a very active Bible study. It is from Jeff Cavins, former protestant pastor. The Great Adventure Series. We have two groups that meet weekly. Every single Catholic Parish in the US either has an ongoing adult faith program, or has engaged with another parish.

Sadly, many people call themselves Catholics (Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden), but do not follow the teachings of the Church. A fellow parishioner even questioned Jesus’ gender!

Tiller the killer attended protestant services weekly. He was actively involved in his denomination. I would never judge protestants by his standard.

So, please, let’s keep the discussion on the TEACHINGS of the Church.

 

[Kirk_O]

My views on doctrine, salvation, etc are widely know through lay speaking , personnel testimonies small group studies, committees, etc.
My spiritual gifts are teaching and discernment,
i test all things in scripture.
i love the word of God more than the finest gold.
i tithe
I preach at our church and others
i listen to Christian talk radio
i read the Bible constantly
i read commentaries
I serve others outside church
I seek God
i seek to be wow-ed
people see how may life is being changed by God
I seek out opposing views, whether here, or Jews for Judaism , or Religion hating science sites. sites (iron sharpens iron)
I am here at this site to strengthen my beliefs
I admit when I don’t know or am wrong
I have been told that the parents trust my teaching of their children
parents “make” their kids come to class because I am teaching it
I am in charge of the largest adult Sunday school class in our church(i teach that in a rotation)
I keep learning
I am a saint ( as in Biblically ALL believers are)
i am a priest ( as in Biblically the “priesthood of belivers”)
i am NOT required to be perfect: but all ARE required to test ALL things in Scripture.

I have Relationship with Christ: i am in Christ and He is me:
I have Assurance of Heaven.

and yet I really don’t do any of this at all, but it is God working through me , using me to share His Truth.

I see alot of “I’s” and “me’s”. That would make me scared of myself and I would have to humble myself to the Lord.

 

[RedBert]

I see alot of “I’s” and “me’s”. That would make me scared of myself and I would have to humble myself to the Lord.

the context was why am **I **qualified to teach the Bible: it was a question of where did I get authority to teach.
:> did you miss the last line?

I know in these message boards it is sometimes hard to follow the context of the points and counter points: But we all should try to look at a few of the previous posts to see why a statement was made

and in post 913 I said
"and yes I have been broken by God; i have pounded on my chest knowing what a sinner I am: And that is why I can boldly claim now that I am justified , born again and assured of heaven:

I am called to share God’s Word: i do NOT need the approval of man "

 

[Kirk_O]

the context was why am **I **qualified to teach the Bible: it was a question of where did I get authority to teach.
:> did you miss the last line?

I know in these message boards it is sometimes hard to follow the context of the points and counter points: But we all should try to look at a few of the previous posts to see why a statement was made

and in post 913 I said
"and yes I have been broken by God; i have pounded on my chest knowing what a sinner I am: And that is why I can boldly claim now that I am justified , born again and assured of heaven:

I am called to share God’s Word: i do NOT need the approval of man "

The problem is not one of those things gives you authority to teach the Bible. You alone are giving yourself the authority, because you feel you have been given discernment, by the Holy Spirit. Which you may have been given for something’s but that does not mean you are all knowing. Sit back and take a look at where you are right now. Maybe the Holy Spirit has led you to this site. He may be calling you to see the truth.

When I was a born again Christian (and bashing the Catholic Church as you do) I would pray day and night for the Lord to show me the truth. When I look back now I see He was daily but I wouldn’t open my eyes because of my desire for self-righteousness. I would have never called it that but that is what it was. I wanted to be the one He showed the secret of life to. I can’t even explain to you how much peace I have now. I pray someday you’ll feel it too.

With love and Blessings,

Kirk

 

[RedBert]

Were you really born again? not just a type of Christian , but justified in the eyes of the Lord? the old has died a re-born as a new creature?

i too thought i was born again since youth : but that may not have been the case until later in life.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Were you really born again? not just a type of Christian , but justified in the eyes of the Lord? the old has died a re-born as a new creature?

i too thought i was born again since youth : but that may not have been the case until later in life.

Because if he was truly born again, then he wouldn’t be a Catholic?

 

[Philthy]

So if I am looking for a church where the congregation /parish believes the Jesus was the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, , was crucified and resurrected, etc…Am I more likely to find that in a Protestant or Catholic Church?
%between%

Hi Red! How is this relevant?? It isnt, really. Unfortunately this is yet another of your distractions to the thread apparently motivated by your burning desire to express that some people can find God outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church already acknowledges this in the Catechism, but apparently you are unaware of it.
But I will comment that virtually any doctrinal set that you wish to find can be found under the guise of a Protestant church.

 

[Kirk_O]

RedBert,
I wanted to add I cherish my days as a born again. I look at it as a journey He wanted me on. I learned so much during that journey, before it I called myself a Christian but I had no idea what that meant. All Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ. Someday you’ll see that the Catholic Church is not a religion or denomination, it is the Spirit of Christ.

Again with Love and Blessing,

Kirk

 

[RedBert]

The problem is not one of those things gives you authority to teach the Bible. You alone are giving yourself the authority, because you feel you have been given discernment, by the Holy Spirit. Which you may have been given for something’s but that does not mean you are all knowing.

so what would give a person authority to taech the Bible?

I must have missed where i claimed to be all knowing.*
however i did say “I admit when I don’t know or am wrong”

So right there is a perfect example of the frustration in debating on these site.

Is being all knowing required to teach the Bible?

** The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. *

 

[RedBert]

Because if he was truly born again, then he wouldn’t be a Catholic?

once again

• The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

once again

• The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I’m aware. Then why ask if he’s truly born again?

 

[RedBert]

Hi Red! How is this relevant?? It isnt, really. Unfortunately this is yet another of your distractions to the thread apparently motivated by your burning desire to express that some people can find God outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church already acknowledges this in the Catechism, but apparently you are unaware of it.
But I will comment that virtually any doctrinal set that you wish to find can be found under the guise of a Protestant church.

the CONTEXT was in reply to this quote:

• We all know that HONEST DISAGREEMENTS arise when different people read and interpret documents. Thats why we need a final arbiter.** Think about it! If the Bible were the final arbiter, why would there be so many Protestant denominations and conflicting theology? *__________________

Pointing out their more UNITY in the essentials of Christian Doctrines (ex: the apostle’s Creed) in the pews of a Protestant Church vs a Catholic Church

Is it that hard to follow the context?

 

[JacobG]

Dear Jacob,

Please address Ignatius’ post.

To which Church did the Pastors belong? To which Church did Pope St. Damasius I belong? To which Church did St. Augustine belong when he said "“I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church.”

• St. Augustine of Hippo

Who told St Jerome which books to put in the Bible? Which books made up the Canon of the Bible until 1520?

To which Church did Martin Luther refer when he wrote, "Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., "

To which Church did Martin Luther refer when he wrote:
“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?”

I do not consider honest research “mimicking.” Please do the research yourself and refute the Church’s position with facts and links.

Please cite your sources. The link you provided is not historically accurate.

What link did I provide? I don’t recall ever providing any links on this site. And who is qualified to say a source is inaccurate? You? Your church? Was Jerome the first to decide which books were inspired?

Below is Luther’s response to the claim that Augustine said this famous quote:

“St Augustine is quoted as having written in the book against the Letter of the Manicheans, “I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church.” Here you see we are to believe the Church more than the Gospel.
I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above [Luther had quoted a variety of texts proving the supreme authority of Scripture]? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.”

Luther continues:

"Further, if that were St. Augustine’s meaning he would contradict himself; for in very many places he exalts the HoIy Scriptures above the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds pass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are, and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.

Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St. Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words. For St. Augustine’s words really are 'I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not moved me."

 

[Kirk_O]

so what would give a person authority to taech the Bible?

I must have missed where i claimed to be all knowing.*
however i did say “I admit when I don’t know or am wrong”

So right there is a perfect example of the frustration in debating on these site.

Is being all knowing required to teach the Bible?

** The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. *

I have to apologize. You never did say all knowing. I just feel when people claim the gift of discernment they feel they have discernment over everything. This may not be your case and I am sorry.

Kirk

 

[SteveGC]

so what would give a person authority to taech the Bible?

Not what…Who. Answer…Christ; through the instrument of His Church, specifically the anointed, SENT men, and their anointed SENT successors.

I must have missed where i claimed to be all knowing.*
however i did say “I admit when I don’t know or am wrong”

Knowing and admitting when you’re wrong is a retrospective activity, and the amount of time that could elapse between teaching and realizing your error could be months, years, decades. In the meantime, you have led hundreds astray.

Is being all knowing required to teach the Bible?

All-knowing? no. All-submissive to the authority on earth that Christ appointed to be all-knowing of the sacred deposit of faith? yes.

Plenty of lay Catholics teach the Bible…but they do not divorce themselves from the Christ-appointed authority to safeguard the truths of faith and morals.