My response to a Catholic challenge

[Catholic4aReasn]

Dan-Man916:

An article in the April 16, 2001 Newsweek magazine, that documents the rapid growth of separate, competing, and conflicting Protestant denominations in the world, reports the number of denominations as 33,820.

Newsweek’s source for this number is the World Christian Encyclopedia by David Barrett (2001 edition), where it appears on page 10 of Volume 1. (In 1970, a similar statistical study by Barrett gave the number of denominations as 26,350.) The 2001 figure is broken down as 11,830 traditional denominations and 21,990 paradenominations. He divides Christianity into (Roman) Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant (Barrett is an Anglican clergyman). So if an organization does not belong in one of the first three categories, it’s Protestant. Barrett has some statistical definitions and breakdowns which must be taken into account.

As for what does this have to do with anything:
the fact that there are so many different denominations means that private interpretations of Scriptures has led to schism after schism after schism within Christianity.
Since the Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this, it must be by man who takes the SCriptures and interprets them for himself.
There cannot be 33,000 versions of the truth.

There can only be One truth.

Amen! Even if there were only 2 conflicting and contradictory versions of the truth that would be too many. Truth simply cannot contradict itself. Scripture is clear that we are to be of one mind, one heart and speaking as with one mouth with no divisions among us (Acts 4:32, John 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10, Phil 2:2, Romans 15:5-6, Romans 16:17, Eph 4:3-6, etc).

The holy Spirit does not give contradictory interpretations of his word. The fact that conflicting and contradictory interpretations exist at all, let alone in the the huge number that they do, is absolute proof that the holy Spirit does not give an infallible interpretation of scripture to each individual, spirit-filled believer.

Yet we know that we can know the truth. Jesus promises it (John 16:13) and has made it the means by which we are set free. Since we can know, without a doubt, that absolute truth is not given on an individual basis where can we find this truth that sets us free? Truth is available to us through the Body of Christ, the Church, the upholder, protector and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) who IS truth.

To be sure, our separated bretheran can come to some knowledge of the truth on their own. But we are promised ALL truth and ALL truth is available only through the God-ordained upholder, protector, and defender of THE truth; His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I sincerely invite each and everyone one of my Protestant brothers and sisters to attend Mass at their local Catholic Church this Sunday. Sit and bask in Christ’s presence; not only his spiritual presence, but his real and substantially physical presence as well. Just like Moses you will be on holy ground, in the real, physical presence of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!! The Eucharist is a fortaste and indeed a participation in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. It is literally heaven on earth, a direct and personal encounter with the risen Lord!! Even though you cannot fully participate you can know that you are truly in the physical presence of Christ!! Amen and alleluia!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[kepha1]

I believe Jesus held all men individually responsible for knowing the truth on all matters of faith and morals. Thus, I believe each individual has the authority from God to read and understand Scripture. All of those passages I cited prove that without question.

This , sir is insane. ALL of your citations shows Jesus holding scripture experts accountable, not every individual. The scribes and Pharisees studied and studied all their lives, so of course they were accountable. Give me one verse, no, I’ll even take a half a verse out of context that even indirectly infers or suggests that all are responsible to read and understand scripture outside of Him who is the Church on earth. That’s your problem. You are blind to the fact that Christ and the Church on earth are one and the same. Provide the requested verse and I will retract my statement. But you probably will write off my post as “meanderings” as well, but will fail to produce the required scripture for your ‘infallible’ unbiblical, unhistorical, unworkable claims.

The answer I seem to be hearing from all of you is that, no, Jesus did not hold men accountable for knowing his truth and that each individual does not have the authority, from God, to interpret the Bible for himself.

Wrong conclusion. Jesus holds men accountable for the truth they receive from God, it is not “truth” if they have to conjure up and possess it for themselves. Even Jesus Himself said His truth did not come from Himself, but from the Father. Each individual can most definitively interpret the Bible for themselves, provided the said interpretation does not conflict with the teachings of the Church. I think the first sola scripturists were the Arians, who proved, by private interpretation, that Jesus was not all that divine.

This then leads to the next question: How then can anyone come to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is what it claims to be?

In light of my response, permit me to re-phrase the question:
How then can anyone come to believe that the bible is what it claims to be? (even though every individual book makes no such claim)

 

[kepha1]

Every conversion story I’ve ever heard or read has over and over and over again pointed to individual, private interpretation of Scripture as being foundational to the conversion itself.

You had better read the stories over again. The private interpretation they are talking about in their conversion stories is consistent with the facts of history, the truth of human experience, and the teachings of a consistent authority that has not changed one single doctrine for 2000 years, and never will. Protestants have been trying to disprove the truth of unchanging doctrine with very little success for 450 years, and hundreds of Protestant pastors and bible scholars are converting to Catholicism. No one converts because of the bible alone, they convert because of the grace of God. The Bible can be just as instrumental for them as it is for you, because I am certain much of your interpretation is consistent with Catholicism.

 

[kepha1]

. Which leads me to address the next part of your statement,

have you not just sawed off the branch of the tree you are sitting on?

Permit me to stretch your analogy.

JOHN 15: 1-8

“I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing… If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for
whatever you want and it will be done to you.”

We can agree that “my words” would include scripture, but what we cannot agree on this that “my words” are exclusive to scripture. Nowhere in this passage suggests that it is. I will grant you, sir, that knowledge of scripture is knowledge of Christ, but knowledge does not necessarily bear fruit, does it?

What fruit?

Galations 5:22-25
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, self control, against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[kepha1]

Luke 10:16

“HE WHO HEARS YOU, HEARS ME”,http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXTChrist does NOT say, He who reads the words I say that you will later write down and read, hears Me. Scroll up where it says, “My words” in John 15:1-8John 6:66-69After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."Is Peter talking about all the words of eternal life that would be written down and read later, or is Peter talking about what Jesus just finished saying that got everyone so upset?

John 6:53-59 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. What just happened at Capernaum? The feeding of the multitudes, the only miracle that occurs in all 4 Gospels. Bible alone theory forbids you to associate this miracle with the multiplication of His body for the life of the world. So what is Peter talking about when he says, “You have the words of eternal life”? Scriptures alone? kepha1

 

[Pisio]

Aloha Patrick,

BouleTheou:

Indeed - and no one was able to refute it.

BouleTheou (Patrick)

I think that I remember the discussion of celibacy as a doctrine of demons, and I believe you were told that celibacy is a discipline of the Church that could be changed, not a doctrine (someone correct me if I am wrong in my undersanding). While it has no bearing on this thread directly, I think that you were pretty soundly refuted with that statement alone.

In Christ with Mary,
Pisio

 

[JPrejean]

I think that I remember the discussion of celibacy as a doctrine of demons, and I believe you were told that celibacy is a discipline of the Church that could be changed, not a doctrine (someone correct me if I am wrong in my undersanding). While it has no bearing on this thread directly, I think that you were pretty soundly refuted with that statement alone.

Not to mention that no one is forced to be a priest, and therefore, marriage is not forbidden to anyone. Of course, anyone who actually studied the history (as Patrick claimed to have done)would know that this was directed at Gnostics, who considered all matter evil. They considered all sexual intercourse inherently evil, so they banned marriage. Since they considered flesh itself evil, they banned all consumption of meats. Ironically, the Protestants’ blatant misinterpretation of Paul’s metaphorical use of “flesh” runs very close to exactly the same heresy (i.e., flesh is inherently evil).

 

[Kurt_G]

After seeing Boule Theou’s suggestion that Irenaeus had no Catholic leanings, I rushed for an early lunch, found my “Early Church Fathers” CD-ROM and began to “itemize”. But MercyGate and others were quicker in posting a defense of Irenaeus and the early Catholic Church. I would like to rehash the issue just a little, for any others like BT who might still have a question in their minds.

The Claim: “Top Ten Reasons Irenaeus was Cathlolic”

The Proofs:

Point#1. Irenaeus was a bishop in the Church, 2nd Bishop of Lyons after Pothinus. Obvious, but worth mentioning.

Point#2. He recognized the Church as teaching harmoniously on issues of faith throughout the world.

“(The Church) guarded this faith, as if she occupied but one house…She believes as if she had but one soul and one heart…She proclaims, teaches, and hands down the faith as if she possessed but one mouth.”

Point#3. He saw the Church as authoritative.

“although the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless the authority of the tradition is one and the same.”

Point#4. Irenaeus believed this authority originated with the Apostles, and was transferred by succession.

“And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times”

and also

“Surely they (the Apostles) wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.”

Point#5. Irenaeus believed in a primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

“We shall confound all those who assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…”

and of course,

“With this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world; it is in her (Rome) that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.”

(5 more to follow)

 

[Kurt_G]

Point#6. Irenaeus DID NOT believe in private interpretation of Scripture. He battled with the heretics of his day who, coincidentally, were using Holy Scripture to support their positions.

"“Starting from the Gospels, each one of them (heretics)attempts to establish his own doctrine.” [3,11,7]

Point#7. Irenaeus recognized a special place of honor for the four Gospels (just as does the Catholic Church today)

“It is not possible that the Gospels can be either greater or fewer in number than they are…Just as there are four regions of the world…and four universal winds…it is evident that the Word, who sits upon the Cherubim, embraces all things, and was manifested to man, has given us a four-fold Gospel embracing one spirit.”

Point#8. Irenaeus was a believer in the Real Presence. He believed Jesus Christ gives us his True Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

“If the Lord (Jesus) were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His Body, and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood?”[4,33,2]

and

“For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection into eternity.”

Point#9. Irenaeus taught obedience to the Church as a protection against various heresies.

“It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles… But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion.” [4,26,2]

Point#10. Irenaeus believed in ongoing sacrifice within the Church.

“Sacrifice as such has not been reprobated. There were sacrifices then among the people; and there are sacrifices now, sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind has been changed; for now the sacrifice is offered not by slaves but by free men.” [4,18,2]​

Now, in possible defense of BT, much of Irenaeus’ writing in “Against Heresies” appears to focus on Theological points over which most Christians today do not disagree, like the nature of creation, the natures of Jesus, no secret hidden truths, etc. It would be difficult, but one could read through a number of the “Catholic” points without really paying attention, and just miss them.
Perhaps that is what happened to BT.

 

[beng]

Beautiful Kurt.G. I like how you arrange them point by point. I shall saved that for later reference.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Ella:

He’s used the ‘celibacy is a doctrine of demons’ argument, among other familiar canards. He said that the Mass is a blasphemy of the cross of Christ.

Two things for BT on this. One, celibacy is not a doctrine of Catholicism. It is a discipline. To get extremely technical one is not allowed to marry once they have received Holy Orders. The discipline is the practice of celibacy in the West.

In terms of the mass I was listening to Protestant radio today and they were talking about satanism. Everything they talked about perverting and the most sacred perverse act in satanism is the black mass which is the perversion of, as they put it, “the Catholic Mass”. At least satan knows where God’s Church is located.

Matt

 

[ANWK]

Hi BT,

I know I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, but that’s what broken records do when they are ignored: they stick around and play the same thing over and over again.

So, what’s with your assertion that the Trinity is clear as day in the Bible, as well as the difference in the number of books between the Catholi and the Protestant Bible.

I’m still holding my breath, so let me once again quote what I wrote in an earlier post.

---- Quote ----

Hi BT,

you have asked everyone to put the Trinity question to bed. the reason why i asked the question in the first place was because you were of the opinion that the Trinity is a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”. i take that to assume that it is clear as day in scripture what the Trinity is.

it should not be a problem for you then to explain whether you came to the understanding of the Trinity on your own accord or whether someone else told you about it, would it?

if we cannot even glean a “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”, what hope would we have of understanding the more difficult concepts of Christianity?

which again boils down to my question. did you understand the Trinity just by reading about it in the Bible or did someone tell it and explain the concept to you?

by the same token, are you saying that anyone who has never heard of Christianity can come to the truth about Christianity just by reading the Bible, without any guidance of sorts?

did that happen to you or did someone tell you about Christainity, then tell you that the Bible is the inspired word of God and then you come to believe??

please help as i’m really curious how you actually know???

regarding the books of the Bible, you seem to be of the opinion that Catholics added 7 books in 1546 to the Protestant Bible, which you obviously believe is the true Bible.

the Protestant reformation in the 1500s was the second big split in the Church. the first was when the Orthodox broke away in about 1000-1100 AD thereabouts. step into any Orthodox Church today and see what type of Bible they are using. it is the exact same Bible that Catholics are using today.

if as you say, Catholics added to the Bible in 1546, how is it that a good 500 years or so before this alleged event took place, the Orthodox Church was already using the “wrong” Bible when they split from the Church??

please help me…

---- End of Quote ----

 

[Ella]

" Now, if I had said, “the mass is blasphemy, and you’re an idiot and your mother is ugly” then that would be impolite. "

BT, if you wrote that I’m an idiot and my mom is ugly, I wouldn’t care. But ‘The Mass is blasphemy’ is a horrible thing to say. Period.

“Why does it offend you when I state my beliefs and state how my beliefs cause me to view your beliefs? I’m not offended when you all do the same with me.”

It offends me that you come on a Catholic website and manage to say the most horrible thing I can think of anyone saying. Regarding anything you read about sola scriptura etc., YOU’RE ON A CATHOLIC WEBSITE - If Catholic theology offends you then don’t read it.
Yes it’s an apologetics site -there IS a polite way to discourse.
Yes other people were rude - that doesn’t make it right to be rude.

BTW I’ve always wondered ‘what about the anglican mass, the lutheran mass, the episcopalian mass’ .

 

[mercygate]

Hey, gang. BT has been banned. Anybody know what the deciding moment was?

 

[ANWK]

AW…Shucks… that might give him the perceived right to boast that he was banned on a Catholic website 'cos no one could answer the charges he leveled against Catholicism. But then again, knowing anti-catholics, he would still be boasting about it even if he were not banned…

 

[GaryZak]

Ok, Ok, what does this passage mean in ancient HISTORICAL CONTEXT?

LK 12:11 When they take you before synagogues and before rulers and authorities, do not worry about how or what your defense will be or about what you are to say.
12:12 For the holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you should say."

The Grace of God is UN-DEFINED, and we should exort INDIVIDUAL CREDIT, at every resourceful moment to selfishly get our way, thus stroking OUR EGOCENTRIC SELVES in a most SELFISHLY PROUD and ecclesiatical VAIN way???

The mother of all SINS being SELFISH PRIDE and VANITY wins ago, because God’s SPIRIT exist only in HISTORICAL CONTEXT???

 

[GaryZak]

I’ve read em all, and memorized most of them the 66 chapters of the KING JAMES, the 73 chapters of the NAB. The difference, the 7 books of wisdom not included in the KJV… There the same, minus the 16th English, if you’re a Shakesphere fan… You say Eagle, I say Vulture, you say flowers of the earth, I say Solomon dressed not like the birds, etc., etc, etc…

The point is, CHRIST WORDS, the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Prophetically in Revelation, the Human face, the Lion, the temple sacrifice Ox, and the Eagle, high above the restm are all so SIMILAR, they’re very much the exact same readings…

All this is good, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH IS MUCH, MUCH, RICHer in DEPTH, than anywhere as far as SHEER VOLUMES of WRITINGS, including SAINTS, BISHOPS, POPES, (pope Leo the the said: “the logical recourse for the devout athiest is to commit suicide.” Way, way beyond the theologic writtings of the Protestant reformers… Saint Augustine City of God alone, is just a fraction of an UN-READABLE, ( in one life time) amount of SAINTLY THOUGHTS and WRITTINGS,

Is this INSPIRED SPIRIT or is it MEMOREX???

 

[RMP]

So BT, you never answered the question posted. What christians in what time period are YOU relying on for the CANON of scripture? You seemed to dodge that one.

(You also made my point about tradition)

pause…BT banned. cmon. he made this so much fun. Sometimes we even get to learn a thing or two.

 

[Kotton]

mercygate:

Hey, gang. BT has been banned. Anybody know what the deciding moment was?

I don’t see a defining moment. He was very ‘hard headed’ and never took answers as proof, as well as not answering questions. That is a trait we see quite often, especially from the fundamentalists. However, even with these faults, I never saw anything so bad as to warrent a banning. :

Kotton

 

[RMP]

I dont know…The “eucharist is BLA…” was a pretty strong statement. That belief may have tossed out of this forum, but it will definately toss him out of heaven.