J
JSmitty2005
Guest
By the way, I think it’s funny that conservative Protestants who champion the KJV probably don’t realize that good old King James was a homosexual! 
- Status
R
rbrooks
Guest
jpete79,
I am going to try and not sound arrogant, but if that’s how it appears, so be it.
I have been following this thread and see a few things that are consistant. In the first line of your original post, you say you come in peace seeking truth. You say your intent is not to save catholics, but the theme of your posts is not on that line. Although you don’t out right say, "turn from man and give your heart to Jesus"or anything like that, it seems you are not truely listening to what other members have said in responce to your questions. In true protestant fashion, you have come back with more arguments of what you think the church to teach and not what is actually taught. Come on man! Is that seeking truth with an open heart.
In reading what has been posted here, the facts of how you have responded to the members you are actively engaged in discussion with are not parallel to what you stated out right. It seems that you have chosen not to answer my question that I have posted twice and are possibly ignoring others as well. Are you ignoring us on purpose? Are you affraid to answer? I hope to think you just don’t have the time as your talk with others is very in depth.
I am going to try and not sound arrogant, but if that’s how it appears, so be it.
I have been following this thread and see a few things that are consistant. In the first line of your original post, you say you come in peace seeking truth. You say your intent is not to save catholics, but the theme of your posts is not on that line. Although you don’t out right say, "turn from man and give your heart to Jesus"or anything like that, it seems you are not truely listening to what other members have said in responce to your questions. In true protestant fashion, you have come back with more arguments of what you think the church to teach and not what is actually taught. Come on man! Is that seeking truth with an open heart.
In reading what has been posted here, the facts of how you have responded to the members you are actively engaged in discussion with are not parallel to what you stated out right. It seems that you have chosen not to answer my question that I have posted twice and are possibly ignoring others as well. Are you ignoring us on purpose? Are you affraid to answer? I hope to think you just don’t have the time as your talk with others is very in depth.
R
rbrooks
Guest
jpete79,
continuing…
I have asked on simple question, so I am pleading for your answer. You are insistant that Sola Scriptura is truth, so please answer me this. Where in Scrpture is this long beloved protestant doctrine established. In other words, tell us where Scripture supports Sola Scriptura? The very belief in this MUST be Scriptural, or the core is unfounded. Agree??
I stand with others in the fact that, if you can show us ONE thing that the Church truely teaches, that is contrary to Scripture, we will leave. You have quoted other men and tried to establish this through the writtings of others, not from Scripture. Jack Chick has been trying for years to save catholics, others have been articulating their beliefs very well, taking Scripture totally out of context. I ask you to support your claim using ONLY Scripture, nothing else.
God bless you and I pray that you will continue on your quest for truth, as we all should daily. I admire you staying with the discussion, but ask you to reevaluate your intent here. Is truth you want, or to help us catholics see your way of belief? Some of us have already had profound conversions and are not affraid to loose everything. Some have been there because of our faith, so have at it. Prove us wrong, we’ve been there before.
Rich
continuing…
I have asked on simple question, so I am pleading for your answer. You are insistant that Sola Scriptura is truth, so please answer me this. Where in Scrpture is this long beloved protestant doctrine established. In other words, tell us where Scripture supports Sola Scriptura? The very belief in this MUST be Scriptural, or the core is unfounded. Agree??
I stand with others in the fact that, if you can show us ONE thing that the Church truely teaches, that is contrary to Scripture, we will leave. You have quoted other men and tried to establish this through the writtings of others, not from Scripture. Jack Chick has been trying for years to save catholics, others have been articulating their beliefs very well, taking Scripture totally out of context. I ask you to support your claim using ONLY Scripture, nothing else.
God bless you and I pray that you will continue on your quest for truth, as we all should daily. I admire you staying with the discussion, but ask you to reevaluate your intent here. Is truth you want, or to help us catholics see your way of belief? Some of us have already had profound conversions and are not affraid to loose everything. Some have been there because of our faith, so have at it. Prove us wrong, we’ve been there before.
Rich
M
mattrue
Guest
go a google search type in “fr.larry” press enter… click on “fr.larry”. click on “homily’s”… go to his homily of aug 8 2004.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
J
jpete79
Guest
JSmitty2005 said:
I have answered this question alot in this post and it is becoming repetitive.
Christ says in the Bible to be a disciple is to follow him…not follow a line of successors but follow HIM. God says whoever believes in the Son will inherit eternal life. Christ says I am the way, the truth and the light. Paul says when there are divisions in the Church, that we are to follow Christ and not worry about which Apostle baptized us. Paul says we do not have to follow customs to know Christ. Christ says what is needed to inherit eternal life is to believe in God with all heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. Believing God is accessible as Christ is accessible to us. He is our arbitrator and mediator sitting at the right hand of the Father to intercede on our behalf according to the writer of Hebrews. We are to be Sons of Light.
Many people here have said to me, we have a direct line to St. Peter. Then they say Christ’s authority was also given to all the Apostles. They were to preach a Gospel that was known to them, Paul writes in Galatians. The Gospel they knew was the one of Jesus Christ. The Apostles didn’t say join us to know Christ, they preached about the death and resurrection of our Lord and whoever accepted Him was automatically entered into the household of God which is the Church. 2 Timothy CLEARLY says the household of God is the Church…to be a Son means to know Christ.
Paul does say hold to the traditions of what you have learned. Tradition in Greek means TEACHING. Hold to the teaching to what you have learned. The teaching is the teaching of Jesus Christ. Using the same word TRADITION…Christ rebukes the religious Pharisees…
“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…” Mark 7:7-8
Also Paul warns “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8
Christ also says for man to not call anyone Rabbi or father or teacher as He is the one teacher. (Matthew 23)
Yes, I admit He made a rock upon Peter. And Peter was that rock. Why, because it was Peter who introduced the Gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore, Peter was the first person to introduce Christ to a non-Jew opening the door for all of us non-Judaizers to know Him.
Yes, we do see Elders and Deacons in the Church when Paul writes to Timothy. The Church is to have a structure but what was the Church in ancient times? It was a community of believers who would meet outside temples and in local households. They were sporadically located througout Rome (obviously we see this in Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth, etc). Nowhere did they say there was one all-knowing body that had power over them.
You say the Magisterium makes decisions; you say Peter was given authority…Yet, most Churches went to Paul and Paul instructed Timothy how to handle Church issues. Peter in his epistles never talked about giving power to anyone else after him and Christ never told him that he would either. This is why the early fathers were continually dedicated to trying to get the focus on Christ and off of themselves (as was shown again in Corinthians).
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
JPete:
I too am interested in RBrooks’ question to you. Everyone has given your questions an honest attempt to answer, it would be fabulous if you can reciprocate:
Where in the bible did Jesus himself say that trust the bible alone? Since this is a pillar of protestant ideas, it would have to be biblically explicit to everyone.
We await patiently for your reply.
in XT.
I too am interested in RBrooks’ question to you. Everyone has given your questions an honest attempt to answer, it would be fabulous if you can reciprocate:
Where in the bible did Jesus himself say that trust the bible alone? Since this is a pillar of protestant ideas, it would have to be biblically explicit to everyone.
We await patiently for your reply.
in XT.
J
jpete79
Guest
Now to answer Sola Scriptura…if the author’s of the Bible were divinely inspired then of course this makes sense. God’s Spirit would have John word Revelation that way because God KNEW it would be the last book of the Bible and John was inspired by God. So that’s whoever adds or taking away will receive the plagues of this book.
Also, Timothy “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching (tradition) rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” If all Scripture is good for this, why do we need anything else? Before that Paul says that from infancy Timothy knew the Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ…if the Scripture makes us wise for salvation through faith in Christ, why do we need anything else to tell us how to acheive this?
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” 1 Peter 1:23
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6
Scripture never tells us that there will be a direct Papal line from Peter…
If Scripture is God-Breathed then obviously it in its own right is PERFECT as God alone is perfect. That is why it is authoritative and infallible. Also Biblical scholars state that there were New Testament Books that were already considered as Sacred as the Old Testament and considered Scripture as well (this is confirmed in both 1 Timothy and 2 Peter).
Did not Christ say that the meek will inherit the Earth? Did he not say blessed are the merciful? How meek is the Catholic Church? They have more power than most governments in the world…they are a sovereign nation. How merciful are they? They have more wealth than most of the world and more money invested than any corporation. They own ridiculous wealth and where does that wealth get spent? Do we see a conscious effort to use those billions of dollars to assist in the AIDs epidemic in Africa? What about the orphan situation there? Was the Church ever supposed to be a government?
By the way when researching Popes through the years the idea of infallibility didn’t come about until Demasus (which was LONG after the Biblical era), the idea of Papal successory and who succeeded who wasn’t written in a document until the 4th Century when the Apostlic Constitution was written. It was not until the Reformation that the idea of tradition combined with Scripture came about. (The tradition may have already started but that’s when it was made official). It also was made official that only Church leaders can properly interpret Scripture. Is it a coincidence that Bibles were just getting into circulation through printing presses and people could read them for themselves? In the Biblical era teaching had to be oral because only leaders could read. Now everyone was beginning to read for themselves…and the Spirit presents itself to all believers of Christ. Therefore according to Paul, all Scripture can be read properly by whoever wants to read it in accordance to the Spirit.
What does Paul and Christ say about loving your enemies? They say to love them and turn the other cheek, yet when the reformists started asking for reform the Church persecuted them.
I’m sorry that the debate took this turn as I only wanted to learn about why people believed the way they do…I learned how and where your beliefs come from so therefore I am ending my part in this conversation.
I pray that you all sincerely do have a relationship with God and that one day I will meet you at the side of our maker in New Jerusalem.
God Bless.
Also, Timothy “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching (tradition) rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” If all Scripture is good for this, why do we need anything else? Before that Paul says that from infancy Timothy knew the Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ…if the Scripture makes us wise for salvation through faith in Christ, why do we need anything else to tell us how to acheive this?
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” 1 Peter 1:23
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6
Scripture never tells us that there will be a direct Papal line from Peter…
If Scripture is God-Breathed then obviously it in its own right is PERFECT as God alone is perfect. That is why it is authoritative and infallible. Also Biblical scholars state that there were New Testament Books that were already considered as Sacred as the Old Testament and considered Scripture as well (this is confirmed in both 1 Timothy and 2 Peter).
Did not Christ say that the meek will inherit the Earth? Did he not say blessed are the merciful? How meek is the Catholic Church? They have more power than most governments in the world…they are a sovereign nation. How merciful are they? They have more wealth than most of the world and more money invested than any corporation. They own ridiculous wealth and where does that wealth get spent? Do we see a conscious effort to use those billions of dollars to assist in the AIDs epidemic in Africa? What about the orphan situation there? Was the Church ever supposed to be a government?
By the way when researching Popes through the years the idea of infallibility didn’t come about until Demasus (which was LONG after the Biblical era), the idea of Papal successory and who succeeded who wasn’t written in a document until the 4th Century when the Apostlic Constitution was written. It was not until the Reformation that the idea of tradition combined with Scripture came about. (The tradition may have already started but that’s when it was made official). It also was made official that only Church leaders can properly interpret Scripture. Is it a coincidence that Bibles were just getting into circulation through printing presses and people could read them for themselves? In the Biblical era teaching had to be oral because only leaders could read. Now everyone was beginning to read for themselves…and the Spirit presents itself to all believers of Christ. Therefore according to Paul, all Scripture can be read properly by whoever wants to read it in accordance to the Spirit.
What does Paul and Christ say about loving your enemies? They say to love them and turn the other cheek, yet when the reformists started asking for reform the Church persecuted them.
I’m sorry that the debate took this turn as I only wanted to learn about why people believed the way they do…I learned how and where your beliefs come from so therefore I am ending my part in this conversation.
I pray that you all sincerely do have a relationship with God and that one day I will meet you at the side of our maker in New Jerusalem.
God Bless.
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
jpete:
with all due respect, none of your reply answer the question…IF SOLA SCRIPTURA is biblical, then Christ himself should and must have said this definitively, with no questions asked. We’re asking where did Jesus say “write all of this and give it to everyone”
Otherwise, sola scriptura is a self negating assumption.
Not being combative, just speaking plainly.
in XT.
with all due respect, none of your reply answer the question…IF SOLA SCRIPTURA is biblical, then Christ himself should and must have said this definitively, with no questions asked. We’re asking where did Jesus say “write all of this and give it to everyone”
Otherwise, sola scriptura is a self negating assumption.
Not being combative, just speaking plainly.
in XT.
R
rbrooks
Guest
jpete,
Ok. You have shown us that Scripture is “usefull”. According to Paul in NT writtings, but not THE sole authority. Yes, you make a strong argument, without Scripture and articulate the infallability of the bible well. Again, not showing where Scripture says IT ALONE is sufficiant.
I see I may have fired you up. Good! That was my intention. My intent was not to make you angry and have you run from the discussion. I am trying to get you thinking about a few things.
without a parable, but privately
to his own disciples he explained
everything.”
Joh 14:26 “But the Counselor, the
Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, he will teach
you all things,”
Since “everything” and “all things” are not written anywhere in scripture, it is obvious that the Gospel is much more than what is written in the Gospels.
I also refer you to the end of Johns gospel.
So, why would it make more sence to leave us a collection of books, than a visible, authoritative form of leadership to assist us on our journy? Christ did make it simple for us to know Him. He left us assistance for when we fall, stumble or run away. Yes He knew what would happen as far as Scripture is concerned, but would he really leave us on our own, with the same spirit leading so many men in so many different directions?
Look at things for how it is. There are how many denominations of Christianity? All claiming to believe in the same Jesus, all claiming to seek the same truth, yet there is an issue. Each one has it’s own “interpretation” of what truth is! Who is right? Who is wrong? Everyone says they are reading the same bible, right? Where did this come from, the lack of unity? MEN! men like Luther, Calvin, et al.
Do you agree with everything our government does all the time? Not me! Did you agree with your parents when you were a teen wanting to do your own thing? I don’t think so, I didn’t. Some people even took things too far in history, in the name of the Church or even Christ. This was the decisions of men. Not the Church.
You make several allegations toward the Church. What you have heard, read, whatever. Not from the Church itself, have you proven any of you allegations. I urge you to seek for yourself, what it is the Church truely teaches, not what someone says it teaches. You seem to be very mislead on your view of papal infalibility, the sacraments, and the church in general. Go to the source man! Look at what is really taught, from the church itself.
I concede there have been rotten Popes. I concede that there is some dark history associated with the church. There is a human side to the body and men are weak. Especially me!
So here I am, still not convinced of your answer. Just as Aquinas said. Where did Jesus say or any other author of Scripture say, this is it, the big enchilada, all of everything and no more is needed for anyone, but Scripture?
Rich
Ok. You have shown us that Scripture is “usefull”. According to Paul in NT writtings, but not THE sole authority. Yes, you make a strong argument, without Scripture and articulate the infallability of the bible well. Again, not showing where Scripture says IT ALONE is sufficiant.
I see I may have fired you up. Good! That was my intention. My intent was not to make you angry and have you run from the discussion. I am trying to get you thinking about a few things.
- When the NT writters where writting their letters, gospels, etc… The ONLY Scripture around was the OT. Do you really think Paul, after all he had gone through and done would think that we would be saying his letters where Scripture? We are talking about a man, a devout Jew, in line for the high priesthood, who persecuted Christians, KILLED them and converted. I think he would have laughed if someone sid he was writting the word of God.
- There are many other writtings that are not considered Scripture, yet were written by some of the same people or those that knew them. WHO had the authority to determine what was or was not Scripture? The Church?? hhhhmmmm??
- I am quoting from another post in another thread here.
without a parable, but privately
to his own disciples he explained
everything.”
Joh 14:26 “But the Counselor, the
Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, he will teach
you all things,”
Since “everything” and “all things” are not written anywhere in scripture, it is obvious that the Gospel is much more than what is written in the Gospels.
I also refer you to the end of Johns gospel.
So, why would it make more sence to leave us a collection of books, than a visible, authoritative form of leadership to assist us on our journy? Christ did make it simple for us to know Him. He left us assistance for when we fall, stumble or run away. Yes He knew what would happen as far as Scripture is concerned, but would he really leave us on our own, with the same spirit leading so many men in so many different directions?
Look at things for how it is. There are how many denominations of Christianity? All claiming to believe in the same Jesus, all claiming to seek the same truth, yet there is an issue. Each one has it’s own “interpretation” of what truth is! Who is right? Who is wrong? Everyone says they are reading the same bible, right? Where did this come from, the lack of unity? MEN! men like Luther, Calvin, et al.
Do you agree with everything our government does all the time? Not me! Did you agree with your parents when you were a teen wanting to do your own thing? I don’t think so, I didn’t. Some people even took things too far in history, in the name of the Church or even Christ. This was the decisions of men. Not the Church.
You make several allegations toward the Church. What you have heard, read, whatever. Not from the Church itself, have you proven any of you allegations. I urge you to seek for yourself, what it is the Church truely teaches, not what someone says it teaches. You seem to be very mislead on your view of papal infalibility, the sacraments, and the church in general. Go to the source man! Look at what is really taught, from the church itself.
I concede there have been rotten Popes. I concede that there is some dark history associated with the church. There is a human side to the body and men are weak. Especially me!
So here I am, still not convinced of your answer. Just as Aquinas said. Where did Jesus say or any other author of Scripture say, this is it, the big enchilada, all of everything and no more is needed for anyone, but Scripture?
Rich
M
mattrue
Guest
i just want to tell you all that i am thinking about becoming a permanet deacon in the latter future. i thank you all for helping me be more knowlegable to the truth.
Just some random thoughts - JPete, the Catholic Church follows Christ. We accept the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. We go to the confessional to talk to Jesus himself. The priest is acting as Jesus Christ. When we pray we are in communication with God. Catholics are supposed to pray, the Rosarary as an example. We should make an examination of conscious every night, who are we praying to? Every prayer goes through Jesus. We pray with the help of Mary and the Saints. If you can ask your real family or friends to pray for you, you able through Jesus to ask Mary and the Saints to pray for you. (anybody watching ewtn?)
we never talked about - 1 Corinthians 10:14-17
We believe there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. When people convert to the Catholic Faith, we say “welcome home.” I hope one day we can say that to you, and it wont be because I or rbrooks or shmitty did anything. It will be because God almighty, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit led you. Peace be to you. God Bless Matt
Just some random thoughts - JPete, the Catholic Church follows Christ. We accept the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. We go to the confessional to talk to Jesus himself. The priest is acting as Jesus Christ. When we pray we are in communication with God. Catholics are supposed to pray, the Rosarary as an example. We should make an examination of conscious every night, who are we praying to? Every prayer goes through Jesus. We pray with the help of Mary and the Saints. If you can ask your real family or friends to pray for you, you able through Jesus to ask Mary and the Saints to pray for you. (anybody watching ewtn?)
we never talked about - 1 Corinthians 10:14-17
We believe there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. When people convert to the Catholic Faith, we say “welcome home.” I hope one day we can say that to you, and it wont be because I or rbrooks or shmitty did anything. It will be because God almighty, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit led you. Peace be to you. God Bless Matt
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
You are right and wrong. We are to follow Christ. This means that we should follow *everything * that He said.
“Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20)
He promised to be with the Church throughout all of history and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the leaders of the Church into all truth until His return.
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” (John 16:12-13)
He tells us that He established a Church on Peter.
“Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” (Matthew 16:17-19)
He also tells us to listen to His Church. By doing so, we are listening to Him.
“If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17)
Jesus also said that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood would inherit eternal life. We are also saved by baptism and are judged by our actions. There’s no such thing as “once saved, always saved” or being saved by faith alone. Many Protestants will try to support their dogma with this verse:
“For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” (Romans 10:13)
This is what St. Paul said. Some non-Catholics use this verse, taken completely out of context, to try to provide justification for their false, man-made, “Once saved, always saved” belief.
A text without a context is only a pretext.
Paul continues:
“But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach? And how can people preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:14-15)
If anyone has been sent, then it stands to reason that “someone” had to do the sending. Isn’t that true? By simple deduction, and by common sense, the question must be asked that they who were sent then, were sent by whom? In this verse we can see and hear the death knell of the “Once saved, always saved” false belief. The word for “sent”, as used in the Greek language of which the book of Romans was written, is “apostello.” Doesn’t that sound like another Biblical word for which we are all familiar? Apostello means to send out properly on a mission. From apostello we get the Greek word “apostolos”, meaning “Apostle”.
The Greek word “Apostolos” means “he who is sent”. So who are the “they” who are those sent, and by whom are “they” sent?
The same Greek word, apostello, is used by Jesus Christ when He spoke to His “Apostolos” in John 20:21:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’”
It is obvious that those who are sent (apostello) by GOD are also given authority by Jesus Christ who is GOD. That authority was delegated to the Apostles alone by Jesus Christ. That is why we listen to the Apostles and their successors! And yes, they did have successors. This is obvious in the replacement of Judas with Matthias and in 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul told Timothy,
“[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Four generations are spoken of here. First, Paul’s generation who received the teachings of the Gospel from Christ Himself. Timothy is the next successor. The third successor would be the “faithful man” whom Paul speaks of. Finally, the fourth one would be those “others” to whom Paul refers. It is only common sense that these successors would have the same authority as the authority given to the apostles by Christ Himself - He wouldn’t abandon His Church.
Actually, He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6)
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
If by customs you mean tradition, then, yes, we DO need Tradition to know Christ. Even you recognize this whether you’ll admit it or not because Sacred Tradition was used by the Catholic Church to determine the canon of Sacred Scripture.
Agreed. We need to follow all of Christ’s teachings.
Agreed.
The last time I checked, the popes and bishops don’t do much preaching about themselves. They preach about Christ and they have the authority to do so since they are the successors to those who were “sent” (like I explained above). You say that the “household of God” is the Church. I agree.
“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.” (Ephesians 2:19-20)
What’s your point? Christ condemned corrupt tradition only! Sacred Tradition is not from man, but from the God-Man, Jesus Christ. We must follow the entire teaching of the Gospel of Christ and this can only be found in Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition stood on its own in the early church. Why would it be disposed of after the canon of Scripture was decided?
Sorry, but if you’re referring to calling priests “father” and the Bishop of Rome “pope” (father), this is a poor argument.
Go here: catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp
Also, listen to this:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_710.ra (you need RealPlayer)
I won’t pretend to know why God chose to build His Church on Peter, but Paul was the one who largely preached to the Gentiles.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
You are correct on the first part. The early Christians went to the temple on the Sabbath to hear the readings of the Old Testament. Then they celebrated the “Lord’s Supper” or “broke bread” (AKA - they had Mass) in hiding, in their homes. Then, the Jews kicked us out of the temples and the celebrations were combined on Sunday. To this day, we still have the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Now, you are correct in that the Church was not as centralized early on as it is now. This does not, however, deny the primacy of Peter. Try readings Acts. He always has the final say. Also, in listing the apostles, Peter is always listed first and sometimes the apostles are even referred to as “Peter and the others.” The local bishops in those places had the authority, but in times of uncertainty, they appealed elsewhere…to Rome, the See of Peter.
Again, all of the apostles were authoritative, but Peter had primacy. How could Peter talk about giving power to anyone after him when he wouldn’t have a successor until he died? I think I’ve made it pretty clear that the authority of the apostles and apostolic succession are both biblically and historically true. Now, as far as the early fathers (oh my gosh, you called a man father!), stop claiming things without backing it up. I’m not saying that they didn’t want the focus on Christ, they did, and so too do the leaders of the Catholic Church today. I’m just saying to stop making unfounded assertions.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Let’s see what the Bible has to say about divisions and unity:
“For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.” 2 Tim. 4:3-4
“There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.” 2 Pet. 2:1
“I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” 1 Cor. 1:10
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”
Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23
“…and there shall be ONE FOLD and ONE SHEPHERD.” John 10:16
“Has Christ been divided up?”
1Corinthians 1:13
“You shall not do as we are now doing; here, everyone does what seems right to himself…”
Deuteronomy 12:8, Judges 17:6, Judges 21:25
“And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?’”
Matthew 12:25-26
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned: and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”
Romans 16:17-18
“Woe to the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture, said the Lord.”
Jeremiah 23:1
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of GOD; because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.”
1John 4:1
“…Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” Mark 12:14 also Matt. 22:16
(Sorry Martin, but your opinions don’t matter to God.)
“But Peter and the Apostles answered and said, ‘We must obey GOD rather than men.’”
Acts 5:29
“Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you.”
Hebrews 13:17
“I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.” Acts 20:29-30
“Have I Then Become Your Enemy Because I Tell You the Truth?” Gal. 4:16
J
jpete79
Guest
Rich:
First and foremost allow me to apologize for my earlier snap against the Catholic Church as a whole. I had a pet put down that had issues with a liver tumor and read the posts here right after I returned. I also wanted to include your post but that would be too long.
Some of the documents that he wrote, along with two Gospels were in fact considered Scripture by the time he wrote to Timothy and Peter. Many historians will say that. Also, Paul knew the role that he was put in. He knew he did all those things but he also knew that he was a vessel for God’s work. His writings though were consistent with what Christ taught about salvation and what Luke told us in Acts.
Mark 34 is taken out of context. The passage refers to when Jesus was teaching the crowds. He would talk in parables to teach them because he knew they couldn’t understand. When he took his disciples aside, he would explain all that he was teaching to the crowds. This is saying that he was explaining the four parables to them not any unhidden truths.
John in context is saying hold to what Christ commands…most importantly love God with heart, mind and soul; neighbor as yourself (this is not in that passage but when asked what the most important commandment was…this was his answer). The Spirit will come upon us and guide us. This I might add is the same Spirit that can help us translate Scripture.
I also agree that there are many writings from that era that are NOT included in the Bible. I have read quite a few of these and there are reasons why as they are inconsistent with other Gospels, their authority was never proven, and their timeframes also had errors. I actually have a book on various books that were left out and have read some of them. I will tell you the book also publishes the reasons why these books were left out from the Bible.
I admit to not knowing in Paul’s day who actually said what was Scripture and what was not. Most of the Scripture was a compilation of the Torah and various letters (as that is what the New Testament is) by the time Paul wrote to Timothy (this is also affirmed by dating various Gospels and Letters).
Now why would it make more sense to have a Book written then to let men have authority? I think you just said it yourself. Look at what man has done in his life. And not just your Church fathers but mine as well (Luther’s anti-semitism was crucial propaganda for the Holocaust). Now, he did leave us assistance in the Holy Spirit. Once, his teachings were written down those too were assistance but his assistance should not be generation upon generation of men.
Like I said before…even with the Spirit we are MEN. The Scripture is God-breathed as I said before which means its perfect, however, man is NOT. This means that we can interpret Scripture incorrectly; I never said we can’t. We have the same Spirit but still have the hearts of man, which means that we can incorrectly derive the Words of God.
Like I said I apologize for what I said earlier however, you say the Church is here to guide us. Well, if you concede that there have been wrotten Popes and various men who were part of the Church, then you can say you’ve had rotten leaders of the Church…the same people that can make and change doctrine. So directly the decisions of men that you condemned (only in the way that you disagreed heavily with their practice) are influential to Church theology. Now Church looks to doctrine that was created by men. The Church is NOT the same as it was in the Apostlic Era.
Also, many of my views on Catholic teachings came from encyclopedias and various neutral tools…
(cont)
First and foremost allow me to apologize for my earlier snap against the Catholic Church as a whole. I had a pet put down that had issues with a liver tumor and read the posts here right after I returned. I also wanted to include your post but that would be too long.
Some of the documents that he wrote, along with two Gospels were in fact considered Scripture by the time he wrote to Timothy and Peter. Many historians will say that. Also, Paul knew the role that he was put in. He knew he did all those things but he also knew that he was a vessel for God’s work. His writings though were consistent with what Christ taught about salvation and what Luke told us in Acts.
Mark 34 is taken out of context. The passage refers to when Jesus was teaching the crowds. He would talk in parables to teach them because he knew they couldn’t understand. When he took his disciples aside, he would explain all that he was teaching to the crowds. This is saying that he was explaining the four parables to them not any unhidden truths.
John in context is saying hold to what Christ commands…most importantly love God with heart, mind and soul; neighbor as yourself (this is not in that passage but when asked what the most important commandment was…this was his answer). The Spirit will come upon us and guide us. This I might add is the same Spirit that can help us translate Scripture.
I also agree that there are many writings from that era that are NOT included in the Bible. I have read quite a few of these and there are reasons why as they are inconsistent with other Gospels, their authority was never proven, and their timeframes also had errors. I actually have a book on various books that were left out and have read some of them. I will tell you the book also publishes the reasons why these books were left out from the Bible.
I admit to not knowing in Paul’s day who actually said what was Scripture and what was not. Most of the Scripture was a compilation of the Torah and various letters (as that is what the New Testament is) by the time Paul wrote to Timothy (this is also affirmed by dating various Gospels and Letters).
Now why would it make more sense to have a Book written then to let men have authority? I think you just said it yourself. Look at what man has done in his life. And not just your Church fathers but mine as well (Luther’s anti-semitism was crucial propaganda for the Holocaust). Now, he did leave us assistance in the Holy Spirit. Once, his teachings were written down those too were assistance but his assistance should not be generation upon generation of men.
Like I said before…even with the Spirit we are MEN. The Scripture is God-breathed as I said before which means its perfect, however, man is NOT. This means that we can interpret Scripture incorrectly; I never said we can’t. We have the same Spirit but still have the hearts of man, which means that we can incorrectly derive the Words of God.
Like I said I apologize for what I said earlier however, you say the Church is here to guide us. Well, if you concede that there have been wrotten Popes and various men who were part of the Church, then you can say you’ve had rotten leaders of the Church…the same people that can make and change doctrine. So directly the decisions of men that you condemned (only in the way that you disagreed heavily with their practice) are influential to Church theology. Now Church looks to doctrine that was created by men. The Church is NOT the same as it was in the Apostlic Era.
Also, many of my views on Catholic teachings came from encyclopedias and various neutral tools…
(cont)
J
jpete79
Guest
this is for everyone here
Were we not created to be in communion with God? Can we not do that through Christ alone? Is how we do that answered in the Bible? Aren’t the ways of salvation and sanctification CLEARLY defined in the Bible? I say unto you, that if they are and our purpose is to be in communion with God and to glorify Him…why do we need to look outside the Bible? That is a question I’ve been asking all along…
What can we find outside the Bible (in Church tradition) that accomplishes the feat of showing us how to get closer to God?
I’ve been asked numerous times to defend Sola Scriptura…but I want to know WHY I NEED TO DEFEND IT? Tell me what is not in the Bible that I really need to know? Is not the way into Heaven clearly defined? Is not the way to better myself to grow closer to God clearly defined…the ideal of sanctification? There was that barrier of sin but is that barrier NOT destroyed and can I not have communion with God clearly through a relationship in Christ?
What I want to know is why do I need to look to another source when the source of Jesus Christ is there? When the source of the Spirit is still inside me…
I don’t want another person to ask me to defend Sola Scriptura because the Bible is God-breathed…I want to know what I need to know outside of what is written? How can any Church belief bring me closer to the God who is clearly defined in the Bible?
Were we not created to be in communion with God? Can we not do that through Christ alone? Is how we do that answered in the Bible? Aren’t the ways of salvation and sanctification CLEARLY defined in the Bible? I say unto you, that if they are and our purpose is to be in communion with God and to glorify Him…why do we need to look outside the Bible? That is a question I’ve been asking all along…
What can we find outside the Bible (in Church tradition) that accomplishes the feat of showing us how to get closer to God?
I’ve been asked numerous times to defend Sola Scriptura…but I want to know WHY I NEED TO DEFEND IT? Tell me what is not in the Bible that I really need to know? Is not the way into Heaven clearly defined? Is not the way to better myself to grow closer to God clearly defined…the ideal of sanctification? There was that barrier of sin but is that barrier NOT destroyed and can I not have communion with God clearly through a relationship in Christ?
What I want to know is why do I need to look to another source when the source of Jesus Christ is there? When the source of the Spirit is still inside me…
I don’t want another person to ask me to defend Sola Scriptura because the Bible is God-breathed…I want to know what I need to know outside of what is written? How can any Church belief bring me closer to the God who is clearly defined in the Bible?
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Because Scripture doesn’t support it. Timothy didn’t know the Bible from his childhood, he knew the Old Testament. The Bible is unneccessary for our salvation. It is helpful, though. I say this because the early Christians didn’t have a Bible. They had the Church. When the Church compiled the books of the Bible, this does not mean that the Church no longer had authority! What good is an infallible book without an infallible authority to interpret it?
jpete79 said:
Yes, *every * word. The Word of God isn’t limited to the Scriptures. The Word of God is also Sacred Tradition.
C’mon, it’s common sense that Christ wouldn’t establish Peter as the authoritative head of His Church when He left this earth, only to have this headship end at Peter’s death. My above posts make it clear that succession isn’t only logical but also biblical.
Again, what good is an infallible book with your fallible interpretation? God would not let us have a flawed interpretation of His Word. Like I’ve said before, Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Church to teach the Word. The Church is only infallible because Christ said it would be. It was His promise! The gates of Hell will NEVER prevail. Period. That’s infallibility.
This is irrelevant. The Church gets it’s money from the people. We give it what we want. To suggest that the Church does not do charitable things is absolutely absurd. Have you not heard of such people as Mother Teresa?!
J
Jlcastagna
Guest
jpete,
Just a few more things to ponder. The cannon of the bible was not finalized until almost AD 400. So for 350+ years christians had no Bible and even if they had less than 10% of the population could read. So, without the church they would have been incapable of even understanding the Bible. Sola Sciptura or Scipture and Tradition? You protestants make this Scipture or Tradition? Its not its both/and. Read “Where We Got The Bible” by Henry G. Graham, who wrote the book as a non-Catholic. So prior to 400 and even more realistically till 1500 when the printing press was invented, Sola Scriptura could not have been practiced anyway. If Christ had intended it to be this way he would have told us so explicitly and provided a means to carry that out. Or the Holy Spirit would have inspired someone.
As far as the Bible not talking about a line of Popes, well Barnabus was chosen to replace Judas as an Apostle and the early Church kept replacing Apostles/Bishops which form the line of Apostles which has replaced Peter as well.
And you still haven’t answered my quetion about which Church you would go to if a disagreement should arise? and if your answer is not the Catholic Church then What Church would you have gone to in 1500 or which church in say 350.
May God bless and protect us
JLC
Just a few more things to ponder. The cannon of the bible was not finalized until almost AD 400. So for 350+ years christians had no Bible and even if they had less than 10% of the population could read. So, without the church they would have been incapable of even understanding the Bible. Sola Sciptura or Scipture and Tradition? You protestants make this Scipture or Tradition? Its not its both/and. Read “Where We Got The Bible” by Henry G. Graham, who wrote the book as a non-Catholic. So prior to 400 and even more realistically till 1500 when the printing press was invented, Sola Scriptura could not have been practiced anyway. If Christ had intended it to be this way he would have told us so explicitly and provided a means to carry that out. Or the Holy Spirit would have inspired someone.
As far as the Bible not talking about a line of Popes, well Barnabus was chosen to replace Judas as an Apostle and the early Church kept replacing Apostles/Bishops which form the line of Apostles which has replaced Peter as well.
And you still haven’t answered my quetion about which Church you would go to if a disagreement should arise? and if your answer is not the Catholic Church then What Church would you have gone to in 1500 or which church in say 350.
May God bless and protect us
JLC
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
As I’ve said time and time again, the infallibility of the pope is biblical. It’s a hard concept to grasp for some, but not for those who trust in Christ and know Church history. The Church taught the same doctrines and morals for the past 2000 years. The bad popes that the Church has had actually give witness to papal infallibility. Despite the fact that they were bad men, the Spirit prevented them from making any erroneous judgements on matters of faith and morals.
First Tradition stood alone, then Scripture and Tradition went hand in hand throughout the Church’s history. You can’t keep saying that the Church always believed in Sola Scriptura when the Scriptures weren’t always available. Then, once they were, it simply does not make sense for the Church to abandon Tradition since not everything is found in the Scriptures.
If the Spirit guided all in their biblical interpretations then we wouldn’t see all the divisions in Protestantism. Period.
I think you need to reread your history. The Protestants did their fair share of persecuting Catholics. They didn’t simply “ask for reform.” Luther was a nutcase that caused all sorts of rioting and carnage across Europe. Not to mention that he divided the Body of Christ, a much graver sin. By the way, he also hated the other reformers like John Calvin. They called each other heretics. You may be interested in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87569
I’m glad you learned some things, but I don’t understand why you’re leaving. You asked us what we believed and why. Then, you objected to our reasoning and interpretation. Obviously that will spark a debate.
I hope that I can make it to Heaven, and if I do, I hope to see you there as well.
God bless!
In Christ,
Jon
- Status