Show it to me in the Bible!

[geno75]

joshua_b:

I feel this is important to an understanding between Catholics and Protestants, so I’m going to try to explain this a little bit. Catholics hold to two types of “tradition”. The first is Tradition (with a capital “T”).

If you beleive in that, then you must believe in the “Word of God” and the “word of god”.

Little “w”, and little “g”

 

[MrS]

geno75:

If you beleive in that, then you must believe in the “Word of God” and the “word of god”.

Little “w”, and little “g”

religion is man’s deed or

Religion is Man’s Deed???

 

[joshua_b]

Daniel Marsh:

ROFL

Basically, your problem really is, demonstrating that your current oral tradition really goes back in time to the apostles themselves. The only way to really do this is from written documents that start from the time of apostles.

I would like to respond to this by saying that the CAtholic Church has those. All you need to do is research it a little bit and you will find many writings from the first century of Christianity, and all of those writings are traceable by author to the Apostles, and all of them speak of the clearly Catholic Doctrine of first century Christians (if you read the writings in their entirety and don’t just take “soundbites” from them to prove whatever case you’re trying to make).

 

[geno75]

joshua_b:

I would like to respond to this by saying that the CAtholic Church has those.

The RCC has this also-
Romans 14:13-“Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brothers way.”

So when one says to a believer in Christ, who is a part of his church-“You dont belong to the one true church”, thats a pretty BIG stumbling block.

 

[montanaman]

What I find laughable is that your magesterium you believe in can plop any doctrine they make up on any NT writing and find a way to connect the two.

Wrong-o, Gen-o. The Church can no more make up a new doctrine than you can make up a new primary color.

 

[joshua_b]

geno75:

If you beleive in that, then you must believe in the “Word of God” and the “word of god”.

Little “w”, and little “g”

Perhaps you should read the post again, and pay attention to the last two sentences for a little bit more comprehensive understanding of what Catholics think of the Word of God.

 

[joshua_b]

montanaman:

Wrong-o, Gen-o. The Church can no more make up a new doctrine than you can make up a new primary color.

Geno, do you actually read the whole post of anyone, or just stop at the point that you think you have cause to argue and then start responding ? Obviously you didn’t pay any real attention to what I said, because if you had, then you would know that Doctrine CAN NEVER BE CHANGED. I challenge you to give one single example of Catholic Doctrine that has changed in 2000 years. And before you answer, please bear in mind that Doctrine is not the same as Dogma nor is it the same as discipline.

 

[geno75]

joshua_b:

Geno, do you actually read the whole post of anyone, or just stop at the point that you think you have cause to argue and then start responding ? Obviously you didn’t pay any real attention to what I said, because if you had, then you would know that Doctrine CAN NEVER BE CHANGED. I challenge you to give one single example of Catholic Doctrine that has changed in 2000 years. And before you answer, please bear in mind that Doctrine is not the same as Dogma nor is it the same as discipline.

The gospel the RCC shares with the world has some Apostolic doctrinal “differences” when compare to her doctrines.

Imposing Holy Days of Obligation, being put under the law again, or not?

etc. etc. etc.

 

[joshua_b]

It is painfully obvious that you have no real idea what you are talking about, as I clearly reminded you we were speaking of Doctrine. HOly Days of Obligation are a discipline, and can (and do) change depending on the Rite. Holy Days of Obligation are not Doctrine, and I am not quite certain what you are referencing when you say “put under the law again”. Again, I challenge you to cite one Doctrine of the Catholic Church that has changed over time.

 

[montanaman]

joshua_b:

It is painfully obvious that you have no real idea what you are talking about, as I clearly reminded you we were speaking of Doctrine. HOly Days of Obligation are a discipline, and can (and do) change depending on the Rite. Holy Days of Obligation are not Doctrine, and I am not quite certain what you are referencing when you say “put under the law again”. Again, I challenge you to cite one Doctrine of the Catholic Church that has changed over time.

Do you really think that ignorance of Catholicism–what it teaches, etc.–will stop a Protestant from attacking it, or treating Catholics with smug condescension? Really? How long have you been at this?

 

[geno75]

joshua_b:

It is painfully obvious that you have no real idea what you are talking about, as I clearly reminded you we were speaking of Doctrine. HOly Days of Obligation are a discipline, and can (and do) change depending on the Rite. Holy Days of Obligation are not Doctrine, and I am not quite certain what you are referencing when you say “put under the law again”. Again, I challenge you to cite one Doctrine of the Catholic Church that has changed over time.

You miss a Holy Day+you go to confession because it is a mortal sin=stumbling block

The RCC can sway like a reed in the wind or stay still. Its the teachings of the Apostles in the NT that better never be changed.

 

[joshua_b]

geno75:

You miss a Holy Day+you go to confession because it is a mortal sin=stumbling block

The RCC can sway like a reed in the wind or stay still. Its the teachings of the Apostles in the NT that better never be changed.

So, am I to assume by your lack of response in favor of a glittering generality, that you can not cite one Doctrine of the Catholic Church that has changed ? Let me recap the exchange for you. You said the Catholic Church can (and does) change its Doctrine, I told you to cite me an example, you cited a discipline, which is subject to change and does vary depending on the Rite of Catholicism, and therefore doesn’t apply because CAtholic discipline can, and always has been, subject to change. You then repeated your initial “example” of a discipline of the Church and give me some vague nonsense about “the teachings of the Apostles in the NT” (which surprisingly enough is the Catholic description of “Doctrine”) without once giving me a Doctrine of the Church that has changed.

 

[geno75]

montanaman:

attacking it, or treating Catholics with

I love the attack word, like Im a jihadist. But it is your teaching you recieve that those not with Rome cannot go Home to our father.

We all believe in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, like the NT states. If the RCC actually, really knew the NT writings, they would see that the rest of the “protesant churches” would have no problem with what the RCC teaches it members. And the RCC would do the same in turn. But the fact that the RCC is the one, true church is their stumbling block.

 

[joshua_b]

geno75:

I love the attack word, like Im a jihadist. But it is your teaching you recieve that those not with Rome cannot go Home to our father.

We all believe in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters. If the RCC actually, really knew the NT writings, they would see that the rest of the “protesant churches” would have no problem with what the RCC teaches it members. And the RCC would do the same in turn. But the fact that the RCC is the one, true church is their stumbling block.

That is a really odd statement, considering that without the Catholic Church, we would have no New Testament (but that’s another thread entirely). Meanwhile, I sit and wait for a Doctrine of the Church that has changed…

 

[geno75]

joshua_b:

That is a really odd statement, considering that without the Catholic Church, we would have no New Testament (but that’s another thread entirely). Meanwhile, I sit and wait for a Doctrine of the Church that has changed…

I sit and wait for an explanation how the RCC does not fit the description of the Church of Jerusalem and the magesterium in The Council of Jerusalem in Acts15.

 

[MrS]

geno75:

I love the attack word, like Im a jihadist. But it is your teaching you recieve that those not with Rome cannot go Home to our father.

We all believe in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, like the NT states. If the RCC actually, really knew the NT writings, they would see that the rest of the “protesant churches” would have no problem with what the RCC teaches it members. And the RCC would do the same in turn.** But the fact that the RCC is the one, true church is their stumbling block**.

whose stumbling block ???

we do not shy away from or avoid the reality of the Roman Catholic Church being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church… and that no other church can claim this 2000 year old fact.

The Church is perfect.

The people in it are not. We have sinners too. You would probably fit right in. Come on home.

 

[montanaman]

geno75:

I sit and wait for an explanation how the RCC does not fit the description of the Church of Jerusalem and the magesterium in The Council of Jerusalem in Acts15.

No more than the U.S. government looks exactly like it did 250 years ago, either. Besides, who says it has to?

Pretend we’re a bunch of knuckle-dragging ignoramuses who’ve never heard of the Bible. Why should we believe it’s the word of God and why should it be the formal template for everything we do or believe.

Mkaaaaayyyyy–go!

 

[geno75]

MrS:

The Church is perfect.

The people in it are not. We have sinners too. You would probably fit right in. Come on home.

I am in it. Every believer in Christ is in it. I believe you and I and everyone here are in the same church of Christ, the bridegroom of Christ.

Now, who are we to separate who is in and who is out?

 

[joshua_b]

geno75:

I sit and wait for an explanation how the RCC does not fit the description of the Church of Jerusalem and the magesterium in The Council of Jerusalem in Acts15.

We are not talking about the Jerusalem Council in Acts15 (although if you wanted to start a separate thread on that, I and many others Im sure, would love to participate). Now, if Doctrine in the Catholic Church can change as you say it can (and has) then cite me a specific example or please move on, but do not make claims that you are not prepared to substantiate on the hope that we will all concede silently to them.

 

[geno75]

montanaman:

No more than the U.S. government looks exactly like it did 250 years ago, either. Besides, who says it has to?

Pretend we’re a bunch of knuckle-dragging ignoramuses who’ve never heard of the Bible. Why should we believe it’s the word of God and why should it be the formal template for everything we do or believe.

Mkaaaaayyyyy–go!

So Christ’s church and her legacy from the time he founded it is to be compared to a secular goverment? I dont think so.

And I do not like to play in the world of “what if?”