Sola Scriptura

[brianberean]

The reason why we have a single heirarchal authority and single cathecism (as you may say) is the very reason that the Church for so many centuries protects what has been handed down by the apostles themselves. The catholic church doesn’t have to add or invent doctrines that doesn’t come from the deposit of faith.

Your statement simply isn’t true. The RCC has added and invented doctrines that didn’t come from the deposit of faith. The Marian doctrines for example. There is no compelling evidence that links the IC or Assumption to the “deposit of faith”.

You are just so naive, in my opinion, that you don’t really see the reality in what protestantism is now–… And yet, your church, too ( I assume) claims that you are the true church…

Naive is in the eye of the beholder. Catholics are naive about other churches. Evangelical churches (some exceptions of course) don’t claim to be the one true denomination or church. We see the church as Christ’s body on earth made up of the elect. The elect are those predestined to adoption as sons to Jesus Christ. The elect will probably come from all Christian denominations.

Yes the Catholic church claims to be the only Church of Christ. Simply because for so many centuries that have passed by, we haven’t changed not a single doctrine that comes directly to us from the apostles.

This is pure bunk. Show me that the IC came from the Apostles. You can’t. It can be demonstrated that many of the ECFs in the first few centuries did not hold to the IC. Protestant historian Phillip Schaff noted that there were seven (I think) bishops of Rome throughout history that didn’t beleive in the IC. Why didn’t they know about it if it was handed up from the Apostles? There is also no evidence for the Assumption coming “directly from apostles”. None.

That’s why we claim to have the direct connection to the apostles and have their same teachings and doctrines carefully safeguarded and passed on to their successors, the popes and bishops, in an unbroken line of succession.

If this is true, how can you explain why there is no evidence that the earliest church fathers beleived the roman bishop was infallible or had universal jurisdiction? Try reading church history without the rome colored glasses on. I can cite RC historians who agree with me if that helps.

You can see, that not a single protestant congregation that exists today held 100% of Luther’s doctrines in perpetuity…

If this is good evidence against the reliability of Protestant churches, then I have a challenge for you: Show me one single early church father that “held 100%” of what the RCC holds today. Just one…

Further, you say that there are protestant beliefs that you find in the early fathers’ teaching? REALLY?

There are different views held by different ECFs. Many of contradict the IC, the need for an infallible interpreter of Scripture, the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the roman bishop, etc. etc. Sometimes ECFs disagreed with each other.

St. Peter uttered these prophecy indeed against these people: "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, …, bringing swift destruction on themselves. …

and…? what are you trying to say? Its been 500 plus years since the Reformation…kind of hurts the old “swift destruction” argument don’t it?

…Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them (the letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, *just as they do the other scriptures. *

Who would ever deny that Scriptures can’t be distorted by “ignorant and unstable” people?

Brian

 

[brianberean]

Pax:

Apparently it did impress Christ. In spite of their problems and their hypocrisy Jesus says in Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice…”

The “seat of Moses” argument is probably the single worst RC apologist argument on the market today. Read the rest of chapter 23 to see how impressed Jesus is with the Pharisees and thier lineage. I was thinking more of Matt 3:9 when I wrote the comment…

You blow off the Church Fathers as just so much fluff. This is illogical and dangerous. For the most part you argue logically but you argue wrongly. The standards of proof you demand are not possible. That, however, should not deter an honest search and rational decision. The Church Fathers support Catholic teaching over and over, and they do this from the earliest centuries.

The more I read the fathers the more I find statements like yours to be misleading.

Read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Church at Smyrna. He clearly upholds the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence. St. Ignatius was probably ordained by the apostle John. Somehow I don’t think he got it wrong. And the one true Church didn’t get this teaching wrong either.

I can’t agree with you on this one. Reading the letter in context shows that Ignatius is arguing against the docetic gnostics who denied the reality of the physical incarnation of Christ. James White explains this quite clearly. (Please do try to resist the impulse of ad hom-ing James White).

And yes, the Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church, and it can trace its apostolic lineage all the way to Peter. The Church Jesus established should know that it is the one true Church, and it should rightly proclaim that truth. Protestant denominations do not make this claim for themselves and are put off by the Catholic Church having done so. But think about it. The one true Church would, indeed, make the claim.

So could a church that wrongly claims to be the one true church.

Brian

 

[GregoryL]

fulloftruth, brianberean

You talk about the proof. OK. Lets try to use scientific method.

1. Define

Protestants:

The Bible is enough to know all Christian doctrine. Anybody can read and understand it.

There is no need of Church to explain the Bible

RCC:

The Bible is not enough to know all Christian doctrine. Church is the only infallible reader of the Bible, individuals, even bishops and the pope (if not speaking infallibly) can make mistakes.

1. Let put this into test

Actually…. Martin Luther did it.

… and according to the Ecyclopedia Britannica:

britannica.com/eb/article?eu=121246&tocid=78003&query=denomination&ct=

[Only in the USA ] thousands of religious %between%denominations thrive within the (only XIX) country.

1. Observation

The different denominations claiming the Bible as a source teaches very different mutually exclusive doctrines. The difference is in things that are important like: How are we saved and is it possible to lose salvation, what is sin, what is baptism and what time life should one be baptize, what is Eucharist etc. The problem is that they all cannot be right at the same time: for example Lutherans and Baptists cannot be both right about what the Eucharist or Baptism is.

1. Conclusion:

Protestant’s Sole Scriptura fails the test and is not correct. It does not proof that the Catholic Church is correct. From our test all what we can say that Protestants are wrong and RCC may be right. Of course an atheist may say that both RCC and protestants are wrong, but is it another story.

 

[RBushlow]

TheTruth:

RBushlow:

But we can trace the leaders of the Catholic Church (by RCC is an insulting epithet, please refrain from using it) straight back to the apostles, who received their commission from Jesus himself. Do a little homework and you’ll find out. Read the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers. Sorry to be so terse, but there is no sense beating around the bush.

Yours in Christ.

---

Pax
.QUOTE]
Reading catholic History will only get you one thing, history the way the catholic church wants you to understand history…there are no independent verifyable facts to support your claim…believing the church fathers teachings on the chuirch is like believing that The Taurus is the best car in the world because Bill Ford said so…it’s self-serving and therefore suspect, as are an abundance of the traditions (aka human interpretations) of the catholic church. These self-serving teachings should be scrutinized and not assumed to be fact.

Read any history you like. If you truly see the Truth, read the writings of the Apostoles contemporaries like Lynus or Barnabus (both mentioned in the Bible) Read the very words of Polycarp, Ignatius (also named Theophorus) or Clement. Pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit and diligently search out the Truth then you will see.

May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.

 

[brianberean]

GregoryL:

fulloftruth, brianberean

You talk about the proof. OK. Lets try to use scientific method.

Protestants:

The Bible is enough to know all Christian doctrine. Anybody can read and understand it.

Nice caricature. Most Protesants don’t claim this. Most Protestants claim that Scripture is enough for most people to know enough for salvation. That is different than claiming the bible is enough to know “all Christian doctrine”.

How many Protestant churches do you know that give their members bibles then say, “Go home and read it. See you in heaven”? Protestants recognize the needs for pastors, teachers, churches, traditions.

There is no need of Church to explain the Bible

Another caricature. Why are there Protestant churches then? Because Protestants realize that we are commanded to fellowship, have unity with other beleivers, etc. For this to realistically occur in society (due to human weakness) we must and do have pastors, teachers, churches, and traditions.

The Bible is not enough to know all Christian doctrine. Church is the only infallible reader of the Bible, individuals, even bishops and the pope (if not speaking infallibly) can make mistakes.

1. Let put this into test

Actually…. Martin Luther did it.

… and according to the Ecyclopedia Britannica:

ugh?

1. Observation

The different denominations claiming the Bible as a source teaches very different mutually exclusive doctrines. The difference is in things that are important like: How are we saved and is it possible to lose salvation, what is sin, what is baptism and what time life should one be baptize, what is Eucharist etc. The problem is that they all cannot be right at the same time: for example Lutherans and Baptists cannot be both right about what the Eucharist or Baptism is.

Please tell me what are the essential beliefs? Do you know that any of the above listed beleifs are essential for salvation?

1. Conclusion:

Protestant’s Sole Scriptura fails the test and is not correct. It does not proof that the Catholic Church is correct. From our test all what we can say that Protestants are wrong and RCC may be right. Of course an atheist may say that both RCC and protestants are wrong, but is it another story.

Please tell me you are not a real scientist. Your thesis shows nothing of the sort. Do all the mistakes the Jews made throughout OT history prove that God was wrong in making the Jews His people? Does Saul turning out to be a bad king prove that God erred in making Saul the first king of the Jews. You might ask yourself does all the many mistakes and errors the RCC has made throughout history (10th century immoral papacy, Inquisition, Crusades, current pedophile crisis, etc.) prove that the RCC can’t be what it claims? The moral of the story is that errors made by people do not prove error in the foundation.

Brian

 

[Steve_M]

brianberean:

The Sadducees and Pharisees could trace their lineage back to Abraham. Did that impress Christ?

Brian

Actually it did. Jesus said, “The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe…” Jesus’ problem with the Pharisees was what they did, " …but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." Matthew 23:2-3

 

[Steve_M]

Church of Christ teaches that you have to be baptised. Methodist teach that you don’t. If Methodist are wrong, they could be condemning people to Hell. Southern Baptist teach that you can’t lose your salvation, while Free Will Baptist teach that you can lose your salvation. Is everyone just supposed to go through life hoping they are following the correct teachings? If I’m not mistaken, the ancient churches, (Catholic, Orthodox, etc…) teach the same doctrines that have been taught for 2000 years. If they are wrong, why did it take 1300+ years for people to realize it?

 

[fulloftruth]

afvafv

 

[Pax]

Brian,

Your response to my point about “Moses seat” is no response at all. If you read my post you will see that I fully recognize the view Jesus took concerning the Jewish elders. While He ripped them, He still acknowledged their position of authority which you have not refuted. For you to suggest that this is a weak argument without providing a refutation does not help your position.

Your response to my mention of St. Ignatius of Antioch demonstrates that you either failed to read his letter to the Church at Smyna or you have deliberately distorted what he said. To suggest that “Reading the letter in the context shows that Ignatius is arguing against the docetic gnostics who denied the reality of the physical incarnation of Christ” is to miss what is clearly stated in the context. The docetists had a number of things wrong. One of those things was their denial of the the “True Presence” in the Eucharist and this is clearly pointed out in the letter. Frankly, I don’t care if James White or anyone else argues to the contrary. I’ve read Ignatius letter to the Church at Smyrna and it is obvious that he believed in the “True Presence” and that he condemned the docetists for not doing so.

You claim to read the Church Fathers. When doing so are you looking are you looking for the truth of Catholic teaching or not? I’ve been around the block a few times with people who have deliberately tried to use the fathers to refute Catholic teaching, and in every case they took the fathers statements out of context and ignored the truth that was staring them in the face. I even had one individual try to claim that St. Augustine wasn’t a Catholic and that he never believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The historical picture is clear. If you read the Church Fathers without an axe to grind, you will find claims like White’;s concerning Ignatius to be in error.

Brian, I’m going to ask you a personal question and I mean no offense. You claim to have spent a long time in the Catholic Church, and so I’m curious. Why did you really turn against the Church?

 

[GregoryL]

Why are you attacking me personaly:

Please tell me you are not a real scientist (Of course I am not a real scientist. I am village fool).

or our morality

10th century immoral papacy, Inquisition, Crusades, current pedophile crisis, etc.

As you read my post I did not question an intelligence or morality of the Protestants. So please discuss using arguments without trying to hurt other person. So:

1. You are very smart and you know that only way to attack my “proof” is to say that my theses are wrong. So please tell my what do you mean by “sola scriptura”. I am very sorry, that you feel, that what I said was caricature. That how I understand. That what Protestants told me when I asked. They claimed that they need pastors and teachers to explain circumstances and some world translations so they can better understand the Bible. They did not claim that you do not need to study and that you can open the Bible and everything will be clear to you. But there are differences between very well educated and very faithful Christians.

Please tell me what are the essential beliefs? Do you know that any of the above listed beleifs are essential for salvation?

That was not what I was talking about. But I think that the question “how to be saved” and “can I loose my salvation” are essential for salvation. Am I wrong? Can something be more essential? And is the question “what is essential for salvation” essential for salvation or not?

The moral of the story is that errors made by people do not prove error in the foundation.

Agree. See we can agree on something.

SO for the beginning explain what the term “SOLA SCRIPTURA” means to you?

Gregory

PS. I am not native English speaker so please forgive my language and spelling errors

 

[fulloftruth]

Brian, you have several pre-verbial holes in your claims. First, I hope you are interested in the Truth and not just winning arguments. Second, here are just a couple of problems with your line of thinking. The crux of where we part ways is with Authority. If the issue of authority could be definitively settled then all other arguments would be settled. Because if it can be proven that the RCC is what she claims to be, The Church that Christ started, The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Bride, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Body of Christ, the Church reffered to in Matt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15, Matt 18:15-18, etc., then she would have the authority to proclaim such heresies as IC and the Assumption of Mary.

1. Do you believe that there is Truth on earth? Is there such an Entity or Person that exists on earth now, that can say “Thus says the Lord” infallibly? Do you believe Christ set up such an institution, did one ever exist? If not then I would like to propose the main hitch in your giddy-up.

2)How does the Christian believer and Church, in the loose way you mean it, come to believe that scripture is just that, Scripture. By whose authority was it decided what letters and books were inspired and which books were just profitable. Who did God use on earth to convey such an authoritative Canon. Scripture itself cannot proclaim its own inspired status. No book can claim itself to be inspired. The table of Contents is not inspired. Even if a list of what books were to be included in the Canon was found in Scripture, we could only rely on that if we knew infallibly that the book it was found in was inspired.

1. Where does one go in Protestant land for an Authoritative and infallible interpretation of Scripture. Scripture cannot interpret itself, the Etheopian told us that. Context is not explicitly proclaimed in scripture. If you think scripture does interpret itself, then is there any one person or any entity on earth that has done this interpretation and shared it with others so that we may all know exactly what Christ intended us to know. What is the simple saving Gospel. Were can a new believer go for a complete description of the tenets of the faith, a complete explanation of the basics of the Gospel. For example, is Baptism symbolic or is it necessary to be saved. Is thier any person or institution on earth that can proclaim definitivley which is true.

 

[jimmy]

brianberean:

You seem to be saying that nobody can correctly interpret Scripture without the RCC. How did you come to the conclusion that the RCC is the one true church? If you are a cradle catholic, how do you conclude that the RCC is the correct “infallible” interpreter of Scripture? Why not the Eastern Orthodox or Mormons or JWs?

Where do you come up with 25,000? What proof do you have that all 25,000 “can’t agree with each other”? What is your source (evidence)?

Brian

Most people who convert to catholicism see what the church teaches and they see what the bible says. They see that the caatholic beliefs make quite a bit of sense. There decision is usually not solely from reading scripture.

 

[Aris]

The reason why Catholics hold to Traditions is because that is what held the Faith not the bible.

When Paul was writing the first epistle, there was no Bible to speak of. Other books such as Revelation was still some years away.

So historically speaking and by logic, the Bible was not the basis of the Faith.

 

[hlgomez]

Brian,

I doubt you really did read the writings with 100% sincerity. If you did read (whcih I doubt), you really didn’t take their teachings to heart because of one simple compelling reason–they didn’t agree with your Protestant theology.

The reason why we have a single heirarchal authority and single cathecism (as you may say) is the very reason that the Church for so many centuries protects what has been handed down by the apostles themselves. The catholic church doesn’t have to add or invent doctrines that doesn’t come from the deposit of faith.

Your statement simply isn’t true.

The writings of the ECF unanimously declares that the Catholic Church today (which you Protestants craftily calls RCC), still teaches that same faith-- Eucharist, infant baptism, marriage, apostolic succession, oneness of the Church, etc. They don’t have that smell of Protestantism in their teachings simply because they weren’t Protestants–they were Catholics!

Let me quote some of what they say:

"The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance *with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition"–*Origen (*The Fundamental Doctrines *1:2 [A.D. 225])

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” --Hyppolitus (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

"In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" --Origen(*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"We call this food Eucharist,… For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" --Justin Martyr(*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).

"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" --Theodore of Mopsuestia(*Catechetical Homilies *5:1 [A.D. 405]).

“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” --Augustine (*Sermons *227 [A.D. 411]).

Are these teachings present in Protestantism?

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Naive is in the eye of the beholder. Catholics are naive about other churches. Evangelical churches (some exceptions of course) don’t claim to be the one true denomination or church. We see the church as Christ’s body on earth made up of the elect. The elect are those predestined to adoption as sons to Jesus Christ. The elect will probably come from all Christian denominations.

You are right in saying that the Church is the body of CHrist. Now, is the Body of Christ which is the Church made up of denominations with doctrines opposing each other? That’s plain contradictory to what you just said as being “Christ’s Body”. For we are members of the same body, but this same Body doesn’t have opposing truths.

Evangelicals cannot claim to be the true Church–why? Because they don’t have nothing to claim! If some may claim, they are just simply making it up.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

This is pure bunk. Show me that the IC came from the Apostles. You can’t. It can be demonstrated that many of the ECFs in the first few centuries did not hold to the IC. Protestant historian Phillip Schaff noted that there were seven (I think) bishops of Rome throughout history that didn’t beleive in the IC. Why didn’t they know about it if it was handed up from the Apostles? There is also no evidence for the Assumption coming “directly from apostles”. None.

You are too focused on IC dogma but neglect the other BIG STUFF staring right before your eyes.

Let me just plainly state this: When did the Virgin Mary die? Did she died before the last of the apostles die or after? If you don’t see the IC coming directly from the Apostles–it simply means that the apostles didn’t wrestle themselves much whether the Virgin was Immaculate or not, but focused more on the Gospel. It will be very superflous to say that the Trinitarian doctrine which has to be defined definitively at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 will come after the IC has been defined. The Virgin Mary is simply not greater than her Son, so her part was to come later when the truths about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which was constantly bombarded by heresies, will be definitively established at the Church Councils. Note that even when the Church taught about the Trinity in the early Church, this was still challenge by heretics–so the Church deals about God first, the Virgin Mary later.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

If this is true, how can you explain why

there is no evidence that the earliest church fathers beleived the roman bishop was infallible

or had universal jurisdiction? Try reading church history without the rome colored glasses on. I can cite RC historians who agree with me if that helps.

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? I bet your answer will be a resounding “YES!” Do you believe that the NT, not mentioning the Gospels, are written by fallible men? If your answer is “yes” then why do you believe these fallible men? We also, of course, believe these fallible men–who teaches infallible doctrines! If these fallible men can teach infallible dogmas, why can’t we believe the pope, guided by the holy Spirit–as promised by Christ himself–will teach us infallible dogmas? They don’t teach on their own–but is guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ commanded them to “to teach us to carefully observed what He taught.” And the Spirit of Truth will guide and teach us and declare to us “things that are coming.”(John 16:13)

Here is some EVIDENCE that the pope has universal jurisdiction:

*“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” *Cyprean of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” Pope Damaus I(Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

*“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” *(COuncil of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Try reading church history without the rome colored glasses on. I can cite RC historians who agree with me if that helps.

In this, I would like to borrow the words of Tertullian, for I can’t take off my “Rome colored glasses” of my eyes:

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

---

***“Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood” (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).

---

---

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

If this is good evidence against the reliability of Protestant churches, then I have a challenge for you: Show me one single early church father that “held 100%” of what the RCC holds today. Just one…

I already have stated what needs to be stated. It’s only for you to read them with all sincerity. You don’t need to buy them in bookstores, just go to EWTN and you can have access to the voluminous writings of the ECF. Don’t be a narrow-minded person–it will lead you to nothing. And oops, don’t turn the table against us Catholics. The burden of proof doesn’t lie in us, it belongs to you since you say that you protestants hold the truth. Show to us if the ECF agrees with you. I asked you first. We have the immesurable treasures in the Catholic faith. You just need to plunge yourself into them.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Who would ever deny that Scriptures can’t be distorted by “ignorant and unstable” people?

Yes, and Protestants continue to distort Scriptures to their own destruction. If you try to be ignorant and refuse to be humble–you will never be able to understand Scriptures, which by the way, you have removed part of Scriptures! Return the other Sacred Books of Scriptures which you removed! And you will see the truth that you deny from the Catholic faith unveiled before your eyes.

Pio