Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

[mattrue]

thanks Pete for the gracious reply. To give up your life, every part of it, is what we are called to do also. What your doing is good. God Bless you. As far as saying if your not Catholic your not going to be saved from what I know, and I am far from knowing alot, if you reject the Catholic teachings and know them to be true then your not saved. If by your own ignorance you reject the Catholic teachings you can be saved. Nowhere in the Catholic faith does it say “all non-Catholics will not be saved” In the end, God has the power to save anyone he wants. again -http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...0D9741280029234
I believe in heaven there will be no sin, so thats why its so important now to avoid even the near occasion of sin. Its important to be in a state of Grace because we never know when Christ the King is coming which leads to this:The main point in Christianity is to be Holy, to be a Disciple, which is to be like Christ. We believe that we should form our conscious from the Catholic Church, with Jesus being the head, not from our own ways.

one more thing. Look up Corinthians 10:14-17. Paul talks about the cup and the bread. Do you think he is talking about the Eucharist?

 

[LSK]

Then I guess by your view you won’t be seeing me in Heaven…because the Catechism tells you so.

But are you being any different then me in your views?

Honey, that is not in the Catholic Catechism, which, by the way, is ROOTED in both Sacred Tradition AND Holy Scritpure.

No, you have been just as proud and just as arrogant. You have not been humble to accept anything except what the Catholic Church tells you in its Catechism.

Because what is in the Catechism is rooted in both the Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is not proud nor is it arrogant to accept the Truth. Rather, it is practicing the virtue of Obedience.

I have heard various verses (many taken OUT of context or having words added to them saying it was implied). The Bible says to use it for repute and correction, yet I hear the Catechism is what I should be looking to…

Have you ever read the Catechism? The Catechism is rooted firmly in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It does not contradict either one.

Christ gave fair warnings of deception against following man’s traditions when talking to the Pharisees. Paul says hold fast to tradition but he is saying to what you have learned from Christ (as there was very little written word mainly oral teaching was applicable though many disciples/apostles did have letters going back and forth).

YES! Exactly! He warned us to watch for the very people you have fallen prey to!

I follow Christ. Do I screw up? HECK YA BUT THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE STILL HUMAN. Just because the Spirit is inside of me doesn’t mean I’m not infallible. It means I need Sanctification and it is working through me to acheive that Sanctifiaction.

Good for you - and that is why you are here! You recognize the need to learn and the need to grow in your faith. That is why the FULLNESS of the Christian faith is found within the arms of the Holy Mother Church. You are not here by accident - the Holy Spirit has lead you back towards your true home!

Early Church fathers screwed up as well. Paul admitted this, Timothy needed instruction…Christ had to reinstate Peter because of Peter’s own denial of Him. You say your Church fathers are infallible when obviously John, Peter, Paul, Titus, Stephen, Timothy and everyone else continued to make mistakes and have to be corrected.

That is why the Pope has a confessor! You have just learned the difference between impecability and infallibility! See? We are not so far apart after all…

The Bible is a book of redemption and restoration. Redeeming His children and restoring our relationship with Him which in turn puts us in His household and His Church. I have been redeemed and my relationship restored and I know I have a place with the Lord in Heaven, even if you disagree.

We do not disagree - you were saved at Baptism. You have had your faith rekindled. Wouldn’t you love to learn about the faith of your Fathers? The fullness of that faith? Imagine being able to receive the Eucharist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ - and that is open to YOU!

Christ said one must accept him to be a member of his body (the Church) NOT one must be a member of his body (the Catholic Church) to accept him.

Absolutely. One must accept Him, and be Baptized. Your parents, as good Catholic Christians, made sure you were saved from the stain of Original Sin. Your faith has been rekindled. Do not deny yourself the fullness of the Body of Christ because you are being stubborn and think you know the Catholic Catechism. You are mistaken about salvation outside of the Church. Have you ever heard Father John Corapi? He explains it best - all Christians are Catholic - whether they know it or not. What is left is for them to decide whether or not they wish to be in full communion with the Holy Mother Church.

You have a wonderful chance to be able to receive the Eucharist. Why would you deny yourself that? The Apostles knew it was the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. So did St. Paul. Why not come home and partake?

 

[mattrue]

RiverRock:

Great job all. But again, like so many others who come here searching, their minds are already made up. Don’t confuse them with any facts. You’ve all been charitable and provided answers that I can’t even provide. I also thank you for the education that you are giving me. Hopefully you’ve all planted a seed. The fact that Pete is even here demonstrates that’s he’s confused by all the “winds of protestant doctrines”, although he will never admit it. If only there is a way to get through to all of the mental roadblocks he has. I guess the Holy Spirit has His work cut out for Him.

your right river, we cannot make anyone come to the Catholic Faith. All we can do is teach. May Gods will be done in each of us. JPete will be in my prayers.

 

[LSK]

jpete79:

Let me ask you again…
Your catechism says I am not going to be in Heaven, what does your HEART tell you?

And again I say to you - our Catechism does not say that - and if you repeat that, you are breaking the 8th Commandment.

 

[Church_Militant]

jpete79:

Yet, your catechism says because I am not Catholic I will not be in Heaven. I believe in Christ just the same as you do…just the same as your Church fathers do…I am willing to sacrifice my life for God and for the people that I will be witnessing to.

Let me ask you again…
Your catechism says I am not going to be in Heaven, what does your HEART tell you?

Do yourself a big favor and be sure that you know what The Catechism of the Catholic Church really does say about your situation before trying to assert that it says something that in fact it does not.
Here’s what it really says:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

and also

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

Now… just exactly what part of that do you not understand? You may not agree with the church on some points, but your baptism is valid. If you sincerely look into what the Catholic Church teaches and then once you know the truth and are convinced of it, you choose to remain outside the Catholic Church (so as to reject the truth that you have known) then your soul’s fate is on your own head.

Based on the remarks you have made so far, I would say that your knowlege of Catholicism is not sufficient for you to make a good judgement about it. 2nd Timothy 2:15 (Amplified Bible) says: 15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.
Pax tecum,

 

[DianJo]

jpete79:

We are told in Hebrews that there is but ONE mediator between us and God and that is Jesus Christ, we are also told that he is a living High-Priest, last we are told that He sits at the right hand of the Father to intercede for us (meaning that it is He who brings our sins to God for forgiveness not a Priest here).

***Christ did not come to abolish the old law but to fulfill it. I want you to show me where in scripture it says that the priesthood has now been abolished. Protestants are quick to say that the old law has no meaning anymore when talking about the priesthood - but then you’ll back to the OT and say how something with which you disagee is against the old law just as you do in the paragraph below. ***Which is it - does the old law still have meaning or not?

I didn’t get into transubstantiation before but to think that we are actually eating and drinking the Saviors body and blood is grotesque and against the Law in which God gave Moses.

Whether you have ties that go directly to Paul is meaningless to me as I don’t need 2000 years of man’s traditions to know Christ. I don’t need 2000 years of a Church saying that I don’t have access to God as the Bible says.

And it is thanks to that 2000 year old tradition that you now understand the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the nature of Christ (human / divine), and many more. Without that 2000 year old tradition you wouldn’t have that KJV bible!

Concerning the Eucharist, the word used for our word remembrance is “anemnesis” which means more than our rememberance. It means to make the actual event alive today; to re-present the event as though it were happening to us this very day. It also has a certain sacrificial meaning to it. Our word remembrance is a poor translation of the actuality used in the Greek. If I’m not mistaken, This word is used in the OT and NT only when talking about sacrifices and not in the general talk of remembering.

Christ was against tradition not for it… ???
I* think you are misunderstanding what you read. No where in scripture does Christ say He’s against tradition. What He was against was the Pharisees using established tradition for personal gain. Christ even told the people to listen to what they teach because they teach from the Seat of Moses (sound familiar? Seat of Peter - ex-cathedra), but not to DO as they do because they do not practice what they preach. Quite different from what you interpreted (I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to lead you to the truth?)***

I am actually going to drop out of this discussion now, as I came here for answers and to seek out truth more indepthly…not to argue and debate points harshly which is what has happened and for that I apologize.

It’s a shame that you came here to start this kind of discussion but can’t finish it. No one here is being harsh, I can’t remember anyone being harsh. I thought you were getting answers to your questions? We are only giving you the proper interpretation of 2000 years - oops! You don’t believe in that do you?
***Our connection to Paul and the other Apostles is very important to us for by this we know that what we have been taught is the truth. Paul even tells Timothy to be careful (not to listen to every doctrine that comes along) for you know whom you heard it from (meaning that Timothy learned the truths from an authorized source). ***

It sounds as though your ideas are being challenged and maybe you are doing a little thinking past what you have always been taught - good for you!

However, it is said in the Bible that Scripture is truth and there are stern warnings about tradition and about adding to the truth. I feel that many traditions in the Catholic Church are unfounded by Scripture and are adding rules which is something I don’t agree with.

What about taking away? It was Martin Luther who took away books of the bible and that’s the bible you are cluthching so tightly. The bible writer was talking about the heresies of the current time - not us in the future - you are taking verses out of context.

***You were obviously poorly catechised or you would understand that everything taught in the Church is from Scripture. The Church has NEVER added to scripture or tradition. Peter actually does say that scripture is NOT for private interpretation because some things are hard to understand. It is to be left up to the teachers of the faith to help you understand -not the individual. ***

If you actually decide to do some searching without your preconceived, slightly anti-catholic bias you will learn that the things you say about the Church’s teachings are actually not true. Let us know if you decide to do that!

 

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

Assurance of salvation…
(because of the limits of the size of this post, I had to delete jpete’s enumeration of why he thinks he is assured of salvation)

Yet, your catechism says because I am not Catholic I will not be in Heaven. I believe in Christ just the same as you do…just the same as your Church fathers do…I am willing to sacrifice my life for God and for the people that I will be witnessing to.

Let me ask you again…
Your catechism says I am not going to be in Heaven, what does your HEART tell you?

This is untrue. Where did you hear such a thing?

From the Catechism talking about you our separated brethren in Christ:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Maybe the following is to which you refer but contrary to your assertion it does not make a single presumption of whether or not you will ultimately be admitted to Heaven when you die (now or in the future):

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Regarding “what does (our) HEART tell us” is irrelevant. Our opinion is unimportant. Only God’s is. We don’t know whether your profession of faith is sincere or if your refusal to see or understand the Church as Christ intended (see the Catechism paragraphs 811 on for more detail) and desires is the result of your sin and refusal to hear the Holy Spirit or “through no fault” of yourself so we have no idea of your salvation status. In fact, no faithful Catholic would make that assessment of anyone (even the Pope) because this is a matter solely of God’s discretion and to do so is presumptious and in violation of the First Commandment as we would be making ourselves a god.

I do think that the fact that Catholics are taught not to commit the sin of presumption is a source of why many of our separated brethren think that Catholics believe they aren’t saved. We are hesitant to make that determination of even JPII so we are definitely not going to make any such judgment of you. I hope this helps. God Bless.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

jpete79:

First, Islam does say the Koran is the direct inspiration of God but it says that it was a prophet who decided to change the Bible because it’s wording has been altered through the years. So it has done exactly what one should not do and that is change Scripture.

Protestants removed the Deuterocanon less than 500 years ago. Now just who’s changing the Scriptures?

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79,

You have not answered my questions of you.

Jesus said we need to live by every Word of God. John tells us not everything Jesus taught was written down. John also tells us God expects us to worship in spirit and in truth.

I feel I have a good understand of truth and therefore who the God I worship IS. Yet you worship a different God, if your understanding of truth differs from my understanding of truth.

In brotherly Christian love, help me man! How can I decide who is right? You have drawn conclusions, the Church has drawn conclusions,** I ** have drawn conclusions comparing those other conclusions.

Give me the key. How is one to decide** with certainty** what is true and what is not true?

…until then we are all just arguing about mere human opinions, while some of these issues are literally life and death issues.

Please don’t ignore this question. Surely you understand that we are all compelled to spread the truth of God’s Word…not merely personal opinions.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mattrue:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...0D9741280029234

That^ link doesn’t work.

Now, jpete79, I’m sorry, but the Holy Spirit does not guide you when reading the Scriptures if It is telling you the things that you’re posting on here:

home.inreach.com/bstanley/spirit.htm

jpete79:

I read your article and yes; there should be a founational Church…but please don’t use Timothy to say “the pillar of fire” is the Catholic Church…it says God’s household…a household as I’ve said is a family and that family are the sons and daughters of God. How does one become a son or daughter? Through acceptance of Christ.

Timothy says that “the household of God” = “church of the living God” = “the pillar and foundation of truth.” It’s all the same. Your invisible notion of the Church is nonsense and was invented less than 500 years ago.

home.inreach.com/bstanley/visible.htm

The Church is a visible institution that can be found. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know where to look when our brother sins against us (since only God knows “true Christians”). Now, with regards to identifying this Church, the following criteria must be used:

*It was founded by Jesus Christ Himself in Mt 16:18.
*It would be built on Simon Peter, Mt 16:18.
*It would be defended by GOD Himself, Mt 16:18-19.
*It would have authority given by Jesus Christ, Mt 16:19,18:17-18.
*It would be guided by the Holy Spirit who will dwell within it, Jn 14:15-17, Act 15:28,16:6.
*It would be one and undivided, Mk 3:24-25.
*It would have one fold and one shepherd, Jn 10:16.
*It would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons, 1Tim 3:1-13.
*It must have the Holy Eucharist celebration, Jn 6:42-70, Act 2:42.
*It must be found in all nations, Mt 28:19.
*It must be found in all centuries, Mt 28:20.
*Jesus Christ said He would be with His Church every day, in every year, until the end of the world, Mt 28:20. This means no gaps in time.

Examine your Church to see if it meets ALL of these requirements.
It must NOT have a human person founder.
It must have a continuous history going back over 1950 years.

Now, on the issue of knowing absolutely 100% that you’re going to Heaven is not biblical. Even St. Paul feared being “disqualified.”

Lastly, go here to see how important unity and doctrine were in biblical times:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27422461&blogID=65270145&Mytoken=5F89553A-1322-4F2B-B8FCAF847BE414711376003703

God bless.

Sincerely,
Jon

 

[Chris_W]

JSmitty2005:

Now, with regards to identifying this Church, the following criteria must be used…

Here’s another one that I mentioned earlier:

The Gospel of John tells us that** “the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeks such to worship Him. God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.” ** (John 4, 23-24).

There is but one Church who can claim to worship in** truth**, because that claim **absolutely necessarily requires ** a living, lasting, infallible, truth verifying source external to instructions which require interpretations.

The ONLY way around it would be for an individual person to claim that, by whatever means, he/she is personally infallible. This is the ONLY way jpete79 or any other person can tell me what I believe is incorrect. ** Period.**

And by making this latter claim a person himself does ** the very foundational thing ** such a person objects to the Catholic Church for doing.

Sorry if I sound frustrated. I see objection, after objection, justified by personal interpretation, verified by opinion, and on and on. If my question is not answered I see this discussion as futile (for it is reduced to saying “my opinion is better than your opinion”).

 

[jpete79]

Orionthehunter:

This is untrue. Where did you hear such a thing?

From the Catechism talking about you our separated brethren in Christ:

Maybe the following is to which you refer but contrary to your assertion it does not make a single presumption of whether or not you will ultimately be admitted to Heaven when you die (now or in the future):

Regarding “what does (our) HEART tell us” is irrelevant. Our opinion is unimportant. Only God’s is. We don’t know whether your profession of faith is sincere or if your refusal to see or understand the Church as Christ intended (see the Catechism paragraphs 811 on for more detail) and desires is the result of your sin and refusal to hear the Holy Spirit or “through no fault” of yourself so we have no idea of your salvation status. In fact, no faithful Catholic would make that assessment of anyone (even the Pope) because this is a matter solely of God’s discretion and to do so is presumptious and in violation of the First Commandment as we would be making ourselves a god.

I do think that the fact that Catholics are taught not to commit the sin of presumption is a source of why many of our separated brethren think that Catholics believe they aren’t saved. We are hesitant to make that determination of even JPII so we are definitely not going to make any such judgment of you. I hope this helps. God Bless.

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation

To me this sounds like if I’m not a member of the Catholic Church I will not be going to Heaven…that’s what Salvation is…eternity with Christ…

 

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation

To me this sounds like if I’m not a member of the Catholic Church I will not be going to Heaven…that’s what Salvation is…eternity with Christ…

Just like reading or quoting a section of the Bible out of context, reading the Catechism out of context or leaving out certain sections will lead one to erroneous interpretations. This is why I put the entire matter in the post. I could tell you never read the entire thing when I think JSmitty and others posted these and other sections. I thought I’d give you another chance to read it all again IN CONTEXT. I sincerely hope your study and reading of the Bible is done with more intellectual vigor and scrutiny. The Bible and the Catechism aren’t things to cut and paste quotes out of context to prove a point in a debate. They are to be used to find the Spirit of God. God Bless you on your journey.

 

[Jlcastagna]

jpete,

To me this sounds like if I’m not a member of the Catholic Church I will not be going to Heaven…that’s what Salvation is…eternity with Christ…

well as a Catholic I Know your wrong in this assumption, but the more you learn from us the more you will be accountable for when your judgement day comes.

P.S. glad you liked my see below

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orionthehunter:

Just like reading or quoting a section of the Bible out of context, reading the Catechism out of context or leaving out certain sections will lead one to erroneous interpretations. This is why I put the entire matter in the post. I could tell you never read the entire thing when I think JSmitty and others posted these and other sections. I thought I’d give you another chance to read it all again IN CONTEXT. I sincerely hope your study and reading of the Bible is done with more intellectual vigor and scrutiny. The Bible and the Catechism aren’t things to cut and paste quotes out of context to prove a point in a debate. They are to be used to find the Spirit of God. God Bless you on your journey.

I agree. jpete79, I think that you need to reread everything in this thread with an open heart and mind. It almost seems like you are dismissing the things that many of us are saying. Like you’re hearing us but not listening. Please pray over these things. I would venture to guess that we got you thinking about some things. Don’t resist where God is pulling you. I have a question, what was your intent for getting on this forum? Was it really to ask questions or was it to get a bunch of Catholics “saved”? I don’t mean to be arrogant by that in any way. I’m just asking. If you came to seek truth wherever it may lead you, then this is the place to be, but if you’re going to be stubborn and outright ignore some of the things that we’re saying because you have you’re own little agenda, then I think you should leave for now and come back when you’re ready.

Here’s a challenge:
fisheaters.com//challenge.html

God bless,
Jon

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

I agree. jpete79, I think that you need to reread everything in this thread with an open heart and mind. It almost seems like you are dismissing the things that many of us are saying. Like you’re hearing us but not listening. Please pray over these things. I would venture to guess that we got you thinking about some things. Don’t resist where God is pulling you. I have a question, what was your intent for getting on this forum? Was it really to ask questions or was it to get a bunch of Catholics “saved”? I don’t mean to be arrogant by that in any way. I’m just asking. If you came to seek truth wherever it may lead you, then this is the place to be, but if you’re going to be stubborn and outright ignore some of the things that we’re saying because you have you’re own little agenda, then I think you should leave for now and come back when you’re ready.

Here’s a challenge:
fisheaters.com//challenge.html

God bless,
Jon

I originally came just to understand where Catholicism originated. Why it holds the beliefs it does and from where did it get those beliefs? I did NOT come to try to convert anyone; because that is not my job (my job is to spread the Word…the Spirit’s job is to do the work after that) and that I feel that most of you do indeed have relationships with God and Christ.

I wanted to know where the idea of Papal infallibility comes from? I wanted to know how a successive line of Popes was established? Where does the ideas of infant baptism, confirmation and other things come from?

I believe in Sola Scriptura as I feel there is nothing else that has to be said in the Bible. I don’t feel tradition needs to be added or taken away from it as it is considered a perfect document.

Many of your Church fathers believed the same thing. Before Luther started the Reformation movement, many people believed in Sola Scriptura…it was not made official that tradition was needed in your doctrine until the 1st Council of Trent. Why did it take 1600 years for this to be confirmed? (And even then a majority of Bishops and Clergy still believed in Sola Scriptura).

Now of course the Catholic Church could NOT state that Sola Scriptura was possible then because the Church would have no argument for a Pope and their power would be lost.

Another big decision from that Council was only the Church fathers could read Scripture and interpret it properly. Why then are there passages from a Protestant Bible and a Catholic Bible that are identical?

Like I said, I didn’t want a debate…I wasn’t trying to convert anyone as most of the people I talked to are genuine…I wanted to know where these traditions originated and were grounded (which in all honesty seem to be in men and not in Scripture)…

Anyways, have a great day.

God Bless.

 

[Della]

I wanted to know where the idea of Papal infallibility comes from? I wanted to know how a successive line of Popes was established? Where does the ideas of infant baptism, confirmation and other things come from?

I believe in Sola Scriptura as I feel there is nothing else that has to be said in the Bible. I don’t feel tradition needs to be added or taken away from it as it is considered a perfect document.

Many of your Church fathers believed the same thing. Before Luther started the Reformation movement, many people believed in Sola Scriptura…it was not made official that tradition was needed in your doctrine until the 1st Council of Trent. Why did it take 1600 years for this to be confirmed? (And even then a majority of Bishops and Clergy still believed in Sola Scriptura).

Now of course the Catholic Church could NOT state that Sola Scriptura was possible then because the Church would have no argument for a Pope and their power would be lost.

Another big decision from that Council was only the Church fathers could read Scripture and interpret it properly. Why then are there passages from a Protestant Bible and a Catholic Bible that are identical?

I am probably one of the few people here who knows what you are talking about with regard to the idea that Sola Scriptura was prevalent in the Church but defeated by the bishops who didn’t want to lose their control over the people. I heard that too when I was going to an Assemblies of God Bible college, working on my B. A. in Bible and religious education (which I eventually earned). It sounds good from a Protestant perspective, but there is no documentation of any kind to support it. And I don’t just mean within the Church, but anywhere. When you can produce actual documentation that this idea has any basis in real history, then we’ll take it seriously. Until then, the very idea that the Church would keep the truth from the faithful just to stay in control is a nasty accusation and an outright lie.

The authority of the popes and bishops came from Christ himself. They never usurped Christ’s authority because they were/are Christ’s voice on earth appointed by him to teach the faithful matters of faith and morals. The Bible is the Church’s book–it came out of the Sacred Tradition (the teachings of Christ and the Apostles) of the Catholic Church and belongs to the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Church has the right and the duty to interpret it. There have been no “added traditions of men” tacked unto the teachings of Christ by the Catholic Church. That too is an outright falsehood that cannot be proven by anyone who actually looks into true history and what the Church has always taught.

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

I wanted to know where the idea of Papal infallibility comes from? I wanted to know how a successive line of Popes was established? Where does the ideas of infant baptism, confirmation and other things come from?

Before Luther started the Reformation movement, many people believed in Sola Scriptura…it was not made official that tradition was needed in your doctrine until the 1st Council of Trent. Why did it take 1600 years for this to be confirmed? (And even then a majority of Bishops and Clergy still believed in Sola Scriptura).

Please back up these claims. I can see why you would make such a claim - so as to have a continuity of belief - but it is completely unfounded. IF, however, your claims are true (which they aren’t), but for argument’s sake: IF it is true that pre-Trent the Catholic Church was Sola Scriptura, then obviously it’s teachings at the time could not possibly have been opposed to Sacred Scripture. You, however, suggest that they are opposed to Scripture (ie. - papal infallibility, the papacy, infant baptism, confirmation, and others). This simply does not make sense. These practices were never opposed to Scripture, and there is no reason that they should be rejected on the basis of Scripture.

Sincerely,
Jon

 

[Jlcastagna]

Della,
Thank you , this is something I’ve been trying to come up with an answer for but, hadn’t got all my thoughts put together concisely. As ussual you did it faster and better than I could have. Again Thanks!

May God bless and protect us,
JLC

 

[Chris_W]

Della:

The Bible is the Church’s book–it came out of the Sacred Tradition (the teachings of Christ and the Apostles)… of the Catholic Church and belongs to the Catholic Church.

True, although I would caution against the phrase “belongs to”, as it was written for all men.

In considering the reliability of Scripture, we can only compare the modern Bibles we use today to the earliest complete manuscripts available to us. And the earliest complete texts available to us today are Catholic translations from about 400 A.D. Every modern Bible simply** had** to stem from those texts. Therefore, if we believe that any modern version could be correct and reliable, we must believe those earliest texts are correct and reliable.

This creates a problem for non-Catholic versions of the Bible, because they differ from those earliest texts. In order for the King James version (or any non-Catholic version) to be correct, a person would have to believe that the Bible was interpreted correctly by the Catholics until about 400 AD, or sometime thereafter, and that the Catholic Church has since made errors.

This would mean that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church for a time (at least 400 years) and that sometime later, the Holy Spirit left the Catholic Church, and began guiding other churches.

This is what had to happen in order for the King James Version (or any other version that has since evolved) and therefore the teaching of any Protestant church, to be correct. All modern Bibles had to stem from the earliest complete writings in existence, which are Catholic translations. On the surface this sounds like it could at least be possible.

But the problem with this argument is that the Catholic can say that truth (God) is unchanging. The Catholic Bible is the same today as it was then. It contains the same books, and the Church teaches the same meaning. We know the meaning of the Bible has remained the same because the Catholic Church teaches the same things now as it did then. And we already said that God (truth) is unchanging. We can therefore say that what was true then, is true now. Since the Catholic Church teaches the same things now as it did then, it must be correct now, since it was correct then. Therefore any version or interpretation that differs from the Catholic Church must be incorrect (by the law of non-contradiction).