Refuting a post

[yesukristus]

I recently found this at yahoo! answers (answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308160431AAivbnp):

Some of the differences between the Roman Church (RC) and Protestants (PT):
RC adheres to the Pope as the vicar of Christ
PT believe that the Bible, not the Pope, is the one and only final authority [2 Timothy 3:16] .
RC regard the Apocryphal books & tradition as of equal authority with the Bible
PT rejects them as a source of error [Matthew 15:3].
RC believe Mary was a perpetual virgin.
PT believe the Bible that she had several children [Mark 6:3]
RC believe Mary was without sin.
PT believe only Jesus was without sin [Romans 5:12]
RC believe that priests, Mary, and dead ‘saints’ are mediators.
PT believe that there is only one mediator - Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 2:5]
RC Pope canonizes those to be called ‘saints’.
PT say all believers are saints [Philippians 1:1;4:22]
RC believe Peter was not married.
PT Bible says he was married [Mark 1:30]
RC Justification is by faith and works.
PT believe that Christians are justified by faith alone [Romans 3:28]
RC claim that Peter was the ‘rock’ on which the church was founded.
PT believe that only Christ is that Rock [Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 10:4; 1 Peter 2:7,8]

The answerer seems to be Protestant, and uses Bible verses to support his/her answer.
My question is can anyone help me find bible verses to support our dogma and beliefs as stated by the answerer above? Thanks in advance.
Btw, i’m not too sure we RCs believe St. Peter was not married.

 

[crazzeto]

You could have refuted him at 2 Timothy 3:16, lets look at it in a vaccume.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P118.HTM

16

3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

What does that say? The person challenging you isn’t reading what’s written on the page, what they’re reading is

-]All/-] scripture [alone] is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

But that’s not what’s there is it? What this is saying is that all of scripture is the inspired word of God. It means you can’t read any one part of scripture to the minimization or out right exlcusion of any other part of scripture. To do so is to deny the written word of God. If I were you I would annoyingly and repeatedly bring him back to this point if you ever get into any other debates with this person about say, sola scriptura or sola fide. Because if they beleive in any of those principals they’re violating 2 Timothy 16.

Now lets examine the passage in context

vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P118.HTM

14

But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,** because you know from whom you learned it, **
15

and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

16

3 4 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

17

so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The NT didn’t even exist in this context, Paul is talking about the OT alone!!! So 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying a whole lot more than your aquaitance is going to want to admit to. What it’s saying, reading it the way they’re reading it. Is that the Old Testament alone, is useful for training, refutation, correction and training in righteousness.

 

[DOShea]

RC believe Mary was a perpetual virgin.
PT believe the Bible that she had several children [Mark 6:3]

Martin Luther did not believe this, so was he inspired, not inspired, or only partway inspired? If not or only partway inspired, why follow anything he said?

RC Pope canonizes those to be called ‘saints’.
PT say all believers are saints [Philippians 1:1;4:22]

Shows a fundamental ignorance of what the CC defines a Saint as.

RC believe Peter was not married.
PT Bible says he was married [Mark 1:30]

Let’s see… Catholics wrote the NT. Catholics died to protect the Scriptures. Catholic monks spent centuries hand-copying the Scriptures… doesn’t it strike you the least bit odd that they would include Jesus healing Peter’s mother-in-law if the intent was to put forth the belief Peter wasn’t married? That would be rather stupid, dontcha think?

You are arguing against someone who has little or no clue about what the CC teaches, but is willing to argue against what they think it teaches, and can easily knock it down. What you might do is to challenge the “what they think it teaches” and ask them to show you where the CC teaches it.

But don’t expect them to. That’s too much work for most of them and they are content to hang on to what they believe it teaches and just keep regurgitating the same ol’ tired lies.

 

[SkinnyJay]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church would be useful in your search, yesukristus. Search the topic and it comes ready made with handy supportive references to scripture and other authoritative sources.

 

[Drawmack]

I recently found this at yahoo! answers (answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308160431AAivbnp):

Some of the differences between the Roman Church (RC) and Protestants (PT):
RC adheres to the Pope as the vicar of Christ
PT believe that the Bible, not the Pope, is the one and only final authority [2 Timothy 3:16] .
RC regard the Apocryphal books & tradition as of equal authority with the Bible
PT rejects them as a source of error [Matthew 15:3].
RC believe Mary was a perpetual virgin.
PT believe the Bible that she had several children [Mark 6:3]
RC believe Mary was without sin.
PT believe only Jesus was without sin [Romans 5:12]
RC believe that priests, Mary, and dead ‘saints’ are mediators.
PT believe that there is only one mediator - Jesus Christ [1 Timothy 2:5]
RC Pope canonizes those to be called ‘saints’.
PT say all believers are saints [Philippians 1:1;4:22]
RC believe Peter was not married.
PT Bible says he was married [Mark 1:30]
RC Justification is by faith and works.
PT believe that Christians are justified by faith alone [Romans 3:28]
RC claim that Peter was the ‘rock’ on which the church was founded.
PT believe that only Christ is that Rock [Romans 9:33; 1 Corinthians 3:11; 10:4; 1 Peter 2:7,8]

The answerer seems to be Protestant, and uses Bible verses to support his/her answer.
My question is can anyone help me find bible verses to support our dogma and beliefs as stated by the answerer above? Thanks in advance.
Btw, i’m not too sure we RCs believe St. Peter was not married.

I’m not sure the post has to be refuted. If it is incorrect you would want to refute anything that is incorrect. However, if it is correct then you might just want to clarify by giving scriptural references for the Catholic teachings.

 

[diggerdomer]

RC believe Peter was not married.
.

Of course Peter was married. I’ve never heard anyone question that. Roman Catholic do NOT believe, as a whole, that Peter was not married. You can if you want to, but the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that. Read Mark 1:29 ff.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I wouldn’t even bother refuting it, since the poster didn’t even have the courtesy of getting our beliefs right.

 

[mlchance]

Respond with a sneer. As William Paley inquired, who can refute a sneer?



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

LOL. That’s going on Nate’s personal “list of kickass posts.”

 

[yesukristus]

So can I assume that all the biblical references used to support the poster’s arguments are wrongly used and/or taken out of context?

 

[crazzeto]

So can I assume that all the biblical references used to support the poster’s arguments are wrongly used and/or taken out of context?

yeah, so wrong i stopped at 2 timothy 3:16. seriously don’t even know what he said after that since his translation of that was so far out of wack. if you want to correct anything just pick that out. i bet the rest of everything else falls apart after that.

 

[yesukristus]

yeah, so wrong i stopped at 2 timothy 3:16. seriously don’t even know what he said after that since his translation of that was so far out of wack. if you want to correct anything just pick that out. i bet the rest of everything else falls apart after that.

yeah i agree with u… read this commentary on the verse taken from various e-sword modules:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, or admonish, to instruct others in justice, and in the ways of virtue, that thus he who is a man of God, a minister of the gospel, may be perfect and instructed unto every good work. But when our adversaries of the pretended reformation, undertake from these four verses to shew, first, that every ignorant man or woman is hereby warranted to read and put what construction his or her private spirit, or private judgment, suggests upon all places of the holy Scriptures; and secondly, that the Scriptures alone contain all truths which a Christian is bound to believe; or at least, that the Scriptures teach him all things necessary to salvation, without regard to the interpretation and authority of the Catholic Church: I may at least say (without examining at present any other pretended grounds of these assertions) that these consequences are very remote from the text and sense of St. Paul in this place.
As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii. 16.) that in St. Paul’s epistles are some things…which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition? See the preface to [the Gospel of] St. John, where reasons are brought for which it was requisite that the Church should put some restraint to the abuse which the ignorant made of reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues. As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? &c. Is not every Christian bound to believe that the books in the canon of the New and Old Testament are of divine authority, as in particular these two epistles of St. Paul to Timothy? Where does the Scripture assure us of this? But of this elsewhere. (Witham)
— Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it. (Challoner)