PROTESTANTS! Answer me this....

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Eric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed1 said:
All this time I thought the scriptures were for everyone, I didn’t realize they were only for the catholic church.
Click to expand...
Everyone was Catholic in Western Europe before 1517 A.D (Protestant Reformation)
Anyway, it appears that you guys went around 1500 years without having an infallible authority declare to you what the canon was. How sad your church leaders didn’t see fit to define this for you.
Click to expand...
No no. The Church had been proclaiming infallibility since its beginnings. Jesus said to Pete and his Apostles, “whatever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.”

If the Church did not have Authority it would not have any say in Trinity, that God is three Persons, but One God. It would have no power over combating heresies like Arianism, Nectorism, Saballanism, etc…
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The Council of Trent was in response to Protestant Reformation. They only reaffirmed the Council of Rome in 382 A.D, Council of Hippo in 393 AD, and Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. I can go on further by listening other Councils that show the Church gave us the Bible.
Click to expand...
Did the other councils speak infallibly. This is a simple yes or no question.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Everyone was Catholic in Western Europe before 1517 A.D (Protestant Reformation)

No no. The Church had been proclaiming infallibility since its beginnings. Jesus said to Pete and his Apostles, “whatever you bound on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.”

If the Church did not have Authority it would not have any say in Trinity, that God is three Persons, but One God. It would have no power over combating heresies like Arianism, Nectorism, Saballanism, etc…
Click to expand...
Your church had not been proclaiming infallibility since it’s beginnings. Also the scripture you clumsily quoted has nothing to do with infallibility and it’s only in light of your tradition that you see it that way 'cuz it ain’t there in scripture my friend.

Now, did any council before Trent infallibly define the canon?
 
Reformed1 said:
1.) The trinity is most definitely found in scripture. Try again.
Click to expand...
Where is the word “trinity” in the Bible? You can’t find it there. Trinity was proclaimed by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

In fact the Books of Acts, the Apostles did not even use Scripture to support that Gentile should not be circumcised before becoming Christians. They use Peter’s account in Ceasarea and in the Council of Jerusalem the Church affirmed that Gentile should not be circumcised but they should astrained by sacrifices and offers from pagan idols.
 
Reformed1 said:
Your church had not been proclaiming infallibility since it’s beginnings. Also the scripture you clumsily quoted has nothing to do with infallibility and it’s only in light of your tradition that you see it that way 'cuz it ain’t there in scripture my friend.

Now, did any council before Trent infallibly define the canon?
Click to expand...
You are really getting on my nerve but making insults. Why do you write "clumsily quoted’ when you apparently lack any Christian charity.

Yes, the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Council of Carthage. That was dated before 1545-1563.

CONDUCT RULES
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
You are really getting on my nerve but making insults. Why do you write "clumsily quoted’ when you apparently lack any Christian charity.

Yes, the Council of Rome, Council of Hippo, and Council of Carthage. That was dated before 1545-1563.

CONDUCT RULES
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
Click to expand...
You are correct, I shouldn’t have posted that you clumsily quoted scripture. My apologies.
 
Reformed1 said:
You are correct, I shouldn’t have posted that you clumsily quoted scripture. My apologies.
Click to expand...
The word “Trinity” comes from “Trinitas”, a Latin abstract noun that most literally means “three-ness” (or “the property of occurring three at once”). Or, simply put, “three are one”. The Greek term used for the Christian Trinity, “Τριάς” (a set of three or the number three),[5] has given the English word triad. The first recorded use of the Latin term was by Tertullian in about 200, to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or, in general, to any set of three things. Theophilus of Antioch used the word Trinity to refer to “God, His Word, and His Wisdom” ca. 180 CE.[6]

Although some passages from the Old Testament have been cited as seemingly supporting the Trinity, and although the Old Testament depicts God as the father of Israel and refers to (possibly metaphorical) quasi-divine figures such as Word, Spirit, and Wisdom, modern biblical scholars mostly agree that “it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later trinitarian doctrine.” [7]

The New Testament also neither uses the word “Τριάς” (Trinity), and it also does not explicitly state the fully developed trinitarian doctrine. [8] Encyclopedia of religion for example argues that “God the Father is source of all that is (Pantokrator) and also the father of Jesus Christ; “Father” is not a title for the first person of Trinity but a synonym for God. Early liturgical and creedal formulas speak of God as “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”; praise is to be rendered to God through Christ (see opening greeting in Paul and deutero-Paul). There are other binitarian texts (e.g. Rom 4:24 ; 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Tm. 2:5-6; 6:13;2 Tm. 4:1), and a few triadic texts (the strongest are 2 Cor. 13:14 and Mt 28:19; 19 Gal. 3:11-14).”

According to Britannica Encyclopedia, while Trinity does not explicitly appear in the New Testament, its basis however is established by the New Testament: The coming of Jesus Christ and the presumed presence and power of God among them had implications for the early Christians. “The Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14).” [9]
 
Here is what Fr. Most says:

**But even in the west there was some difficulty, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who tended to favor the shorter canon (without the deuterocanonicals). So Pope Gregory I spoke of First Macchabees as useful for edification but not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan, about a thousand years later, expressed a similar view even after the Decree for the Jacobites of the Council of Florence (1441: DS 1335).

The really final settlement came from the Council of Trent, against the errors of Luther, in 1546 (DS 1501-05). It accepted the same list as the African councils. **

This can be found in an article at zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/e-bks/scrp/s525/s525_chap7.html

So, how do you know the three councils; Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were infallible in what they decreed?

Also, if they were infallible, why didn’t Pope Gregory realize that 1 Maccabees was part of the canon and why didn’t Cardinal Cajetan realize the deuterocanonicals were canon and the case closed?
 
Reformed1 said:
Here is what Fr. Most says:

**But even in the west there was some difficulty, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who tended to favor the shorter canon (without the deuterocanonicals). So Pope Gregory I spoke of First Macchabees as useful for edification but not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan, about a thousand years later, expressed a similar view even after the Decree for the Jacobites of the Council of Florence (1441: DS 1335).

The really final settlement came from the Council of Trent, against the errors of Luther, in 1546 (DS 1501-05). It accepted the same list as the African councils. **

This can be found in an article at zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/e-bks/scrp/s525/s525_chap7.html

So, how do you know the three councils; Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were infallible in what they decreed?

Also, if they were infallible, why didn’t Pope Gregory realize that 1 Maccabees was part of the canon and why didn’t Cardinal Cajetan realize the deuterocanonicals were canon and the case closed?
Click to expand...
The three councils of Rome, Hippo in Carthage were infallible because all the Church leaders were gather and were in union with the Pope are part of what we Catholics called the Magisterium of the Church. When decree is set like canonizing Scripture all the bishops in union with the Pope is infallible. The subject here was what Books are inspired by God.

To find which Scripture is inspired. It must be used in the Liturgy, have to be written by the Apostles, or their successors, and does not contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Pope Gregory as a person is not infallible. Just because he didn’t realized that Maccabees 1 is inspired, nor that St. Jerome had doubts with the deutorocanonical Bible should be used does not make those books useful.

Just because Catholic leaders did not realized they were canonical doesn’t prove anything of this issue. I myself doubt (at one time) Maccabees 1 and 2 but I trust the Church made a good judgement in its decision and I believe Jesus gave the Church authority. Of course now I realized they are canonical or inspired.

The Church itself made the final decision what Books were acceptible. Once the Church itself makes a proclamation on moral and faith, it cannot reverse its decision. The issue proclaim here was faith, which is the Scripture itself.

If you read Fr. More, he said the the Council of Trent had the same list of Scripture as the African Councils, which is Council of Hippo, and Carthage. The council of Rome first made the list.

The Council of Trent only reaffirmed those Councils as well as others before it. Like Council of Florence in late 1400s.
 
Reformed1 said:
All this time I thought the scriptures were for everyone, I didn’t realize they were only for the catholic church.

Anyway, it appears that you guys went around 1500 years without having an infallible authority declare to you what the canon was. How sad your church leaders didn’t see fit to define this for you.
Click to expand...
let’s overlook for the time being that your statement obviousely shows you do not know what the Holy Spirit’s give of infallibility means.

Actually we did quite well…
survived the persecution in the first 300 years…
survived the hugh heresies thru the centuries…
survived the apostasy of the Reformers as they pulled uncathecized Catholics out of the Church…
survived even the priests and prelates of the Church and their attempts to destroy from within…

Now, let’s see… yours and other manmade theologies did not even survive 50 years after 1517…

there is not one non-Catholic so-called Christian denomination that has existed since Christ… all have come in the last 500 years (or much less)

As for Trent… it simply re-affirmed the Canon… read it.

It also re-affirmed the Catholic teaching on Justification, sanctification etc etc etc… all was necessary to answer the upstarts that today claim to be the Church Jesus started.

now that… is SAD

.
 
St.Eric said:
AFH,
What you need to understand is that when Catholics talk about the Church, they are talking about Jesus Christ. As Catholics we understand and bleieve that the Church IS Jesus Christ. The Church is the visible, living body of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we are saved through the Church, which IS Jesus Christ. We are Saved through his body. his body is what wrought our salvation on the cross. His body now, on earth is what continues to save and is the conduit through which grace flows. The farther down the pipeline, as it were, the further away the original source of grace.
So, when you here a Catholic say “the Church” keep in mind that the Catholic is saying, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Well said, and I would like to add to this.

AFH, you have the Bible, which is a beautiful and wonderful book. It’s God’s love letter to us. You cannot read His word without paying attention to Him, any more than a wife can read a love letter from her husband without paying attention to him.

In the same way, we have the Church. We cannot pay attention to the Church without paying attention to Christ. Jesus said He would build a Church and even Hell would not prevail against it. Everything in the Church is about Jesus, especially the sacraments. When we receive the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, Christ inundates us with His sanctifying grace.

That’s why we keep emphasizing the Church to you. We want you to have this! You may say, “But I love Jesus with all my heart and soul. Surely there can’t be more than that!” Of course you love Him that way. But what if there’s a way to be even closer to Jesus whom you love? What if you can actually be united with Him, not just in heaven, but here, now, on earth? That’s what we have when we receive Him in the Eucharist! Jesus said, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.” (John 6:54-57)

What if that isn’t a mere symbol? What if it’s really true that Jesus comes right into our bodies? What if you can actually can get closer to Him, be united with Him that way?

Yes, you have the Bible, which as I said, is God’s love letter to us. But AFH, there is oh! so much more! There is the Church, with its the sacraments, that Jesus gave us.
 
julebenn said:
DARichards;1752696:
What you really want to say is this: Read the Bible as much as you like, as long as you don’t question any doctrine taught by the Roman Catholic magisterium.

Why are you not bothered by the fact that, dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, auricular confession, purgatory and the veneration of statues are absent from the pages of the Bible.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to study these teachings and practices before stating baldly that they are “absent from the pages of the Bible.”

Several tract-length essays are available on the Catholic answers home page.

I find it particularly staggering that anyone who claims familiarity with the Bible should claim that auricular confession is not demonstrated in it. why oral Tradition? I am a convert to the Church, and even before I considered becoming Catholic I understood that the practice of Confession, as the Catholi Church exercises it, was not only scriptural but actually necesary, and one of the greatest gifts left to us by Christ in his Church.
Click to expand...
 
PauloFreire2 said:
Some Catholics tend to put too much emphasis on the Church, and not enough on Christ. Some Protestants tend to put too much emphasis on the Bible, and not enough on Christ. In the end, it comes down to doing one’s best to follow the teachings of Christ and to respond to the salvation He offers, in the tradition one has embraced. 👍
Click to expand...
Hi,

Agreed:thumbsup:
 
MrS said:
let’s overlook for the time being that your statement obviousely shows you do not know what the Holy Spirit’s give of infallibility means.

Actually we did quite well…
survived the persecution in the first 300 years…
survived the hugh heresies thru the centuries…
survived the apostasy of the Reformers as they pulled uncathecized Catholics out of the Church…
survived even the priests and prelates of the Church and their attempts to destroy from within…

Now, let’s see… yours and other manmade theologies did not even survive 50 years after 1517…

there is not one non-Catholic so-called Christian denomination that has existed since Christ… all have come in the last 500 years (or much less)

As for Trent… it simply re-affirmed the Canon… read it.

It also re-affirmed the Catholic teaching on Justification, sanctification etc etc etc… all was necessary to answer the upstarts that today claim to be the Church Jesus started.

now that… is SAD

WRONG!!!

Did you forget the Greek Orthodox Church.They too claim a succession of bishops going back to the apostolic era. there were other Christian churches such as the Donatists, Novatians, Waldenses, the Lollards and the Hussites, who were bitterly persecuted by Catholics.

Not all catholic churches in the first centuries recognize the bishop of Rome as the universal and infallible leader of all churches, I believe those in the esst never accepted the papal claim.

Jesus did not come to save an Roman institution the church
is made up of all true believers.

The Reformation was a cleanup of God from abuses that crept in during the centuries.

Also, the Catholic Church teaching back then was not found for things such as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These came in later in the history of the Catholic Church they were also absent in apostolic churches and the early post-apostolic era.

Churches that came later in history are also churches of Christ if they are spiritually united to Christ, they show it by their faith, obedience to His Word and love for one another.

Any church may boast about its longevity, yet it may be withering and produces little or no fruit.
.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
julebenn:
Is it really wise of you to say. WRONG? It’s very un Christian and uncharitable.

You are very incorrect in your beliefs about the Catholic Church. The teachings of the Catholic Church have always remain the same throughout 2,000 yrs. In fact it was not until St. Ignatious of Antioch called the Christian Church Catholic in 107-110 AD. which is way before the East-West Schism of the Christianity…
 
MrS said:
let’s overlook for the time being that your statement obviousely shows you do not know what the Holy Spirit’s give of infallibility means.

Actually we did quite well…
survived the persecution in the first 300 years…
survived the hugh heresies thru the centuries…
survived the apostasy of the Reformers as they pulled uncathecized Catholics out of the Church…
survived even the priests and prelates of the Church and their attempts to destroy from within…

Now, let’s see… yours and other manmade theologies did not even survive 50 years after 1517…

there is not one non-Catholic so-called Christian denomination that has existed since Christ… all have come in the last 500 years (or much less)

As for Trent… it simply re-affirmed the Canon… read it.

It also re-affirmed the Catholic teaching on Justification, sanctification etc etc etc… all was necessary to answer the upstarts that today claim to be the Church Jesus started.

now that… is SAD

.
Click to expand...
opps I meant to say the Reformation was a claenup by GOD 😃
 
julebenn said:
Also, the Catholic Church teaching back then was not found for things such as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, the veneration of statues and praying to the saints, purgatory, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, transubstantiation, auricular confession, the rosary, the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. These came in later in the history of the Catholic Church they were also absent in apostolic churches and the early post-apostolic era.
Click to expand...
You are again incorrect in your understanding of Catholicism.

Papal Authority:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#scripture_I

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III

Veneration of the Saints;

scripturecatholic.com/saints.html#saints-IV

scripturecatholic.com/saints.html#tradition-I

All your objections are refuted in the scripturecatholic.com
 
julebenn said:
opps I meant to say the Reformation was a claenup by GOD 😃
Click to expand...
Reformation should never happen. The Church Leaders and Reformers refuse to discuss the issue and resolve it by discussion it. Instead the Church refuse to listen and you have Martin Luther break away and form his own Church.

By the time the Catholic Church realized what was happening it was too late. Though Martin Luther had no authority to break away from Jesus Christ’s Church, and his reformation lead to over 10,000 Protestant denominations with various doctrines and dogma of their own…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top