Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[medwigel]

There were no “false teachings put out by the Church”. This is not possible, because Jesus protects the Church from teaching falsehoods. If the Church were to teach falsehoods, then the faithful would pass through the gates of hell! Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

The teaching may have eventually be corrected but they were still present to the masses as the will of God through the church. So when the Pope says pay money to buy forgiveness, he is not doing it in his name, he’s using the authority of the church to do it and enforce it. He is abusing his power and position in the church. He not saying “hey this is what I say”, no he’s saying “this is what God says” that’s why the people followed along.

 

[Cathoholic]

This from excerpts of our local Catholic men’s Bible Group (with minor changes to adapt to this post)

The verse says:

.

GALATIANS 2:11 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

.

The people opposed to Papal infallibility WISHED it said:

.

NOT GALATIANS 2:11 (Phantom verse) 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he officially taught wrong doctrine.

.

Actually St. Peter MAY have been right here (but I won’t get into detail about the “WHY”).

We don’t teach Popes are impeccable in the way they live.
They are infallible when they teach in the manner we already stated.

.

Objection: But Peter IS teaching! He’s teaching by example—a bad example.

Answer: Then you misunderstand what infallibility is and isn’t.
Peter is still not teaching anything in his official capacity.
St. Paul corrected St. Peter for how Peter “stood” NOT how he taught!

.

As a matter of fact, Galatians 2:11-14 implicitly affirms St. Peter was TEACHING correctly but may have been BEHAVING incorrectly.

Why?

The word for “insincerely” above in Galatians 2 can also mean “hypocrisy”.

That’s why the NIV Protestant translation uses the word “hypocrisy” here.

Objector: That’s right. Peter’s “hypocrisy” is what disqualifies him from teaching infallibly.

Answer: No it doesn’t disqualify Peter from teaching infallibly. Let’s look at it.

.

GALATIANS 2:13-14 (NIV) 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

“Hypocrisy” means saying one thing and DOING ANOTHER.

If Peter is carrying out a wrong ACTION here in Galatians . . . .
. . . . yet he is committing “hypocrisy”, what would that mean?

It would mean he’s TEACHING something and DOING another.

It would mean that St. Peter was SAYING Gentiles and Jews, as Christians, have fellowship!

It would mean that St. Peter was CORRECT in his teaching!

Galatians 2 reasserts St. Peter teaching correctly!

Notice by the way, below in Acts 16 how even St. Paul himself behaves concerning much the same peer-pressure dilemma as St. Peter faced in Galatians 2.

St. Paul does virtually the same thing as Peter did! He carries out Jewish ritual laws (on someone else even!) to cater to and appease his fellow Jews.

.

ACTS 16:1-3 1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek

 

[guanophore]

Yes it did teach that

No, this has never been a teaching of the Church. If you think it was, then you need to produce some evidence.

There were people who purported this idea.

That was one of the main issues Martin Luther took issue with.

Validly, as the Church affirmed. This was why Trent made it clear that indulgences cannot be “sold”. People who tried to sell them for a profit were acting contrary to the teaching of the Church.

It was ABSOLUTELY taught and enforced by the Catholic church.

No. The Church cannot “enforce” any such thing.

There were priest put in charge of collecting indulgences.

Indeed there were, just as in our own age there have been priests who commit heinous crimes against children. Their misbehavior is not a "church teaching’.

You need to read about your own history.

Apparently you have a great deal more history to read than you have to date. You might want to start by producing for me an official Catholic teaching that indulgences can be “sold”.

All you have to do is a Google search.

How do you think people learned about Church history before “google”?

Have you ever considered reading the Early Church Fathers?

Do you realize that everything you read on the internet has a certain slant?

 

[guanophore]

But Paul did not preach to the Jews, he preached to the Gentiles

He did both, but no matter the audience, that does not change that salvation is from the Jews.

Paul went first to the synagogue in every city he visited.

And on the sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” 16 So Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said… Acts 13

17 Now when they had passed through Amphip′olis and Apollo′nia, they came to Thessaloni′ca, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks[a] he argued with them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” Acts 17

Paul taught the Jews in the synagogue from the “law and the prophets” that were read every Sabbath. He used the Septuagint to prove that Jesus is the Christ.

St. James wrote to the Christians on the foundation that Moses is taught in the synagogue.

"For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues.” Acts 15.

Why would it be relevant for the Christians to have Moses preached in every synagogue on the Sabbath if what Moses had to say was not relevant?

If you think that Paul did not preach to the Jews you have missed some significant portions of the book of Acts!

No one could be saved by Jesus in the Old Testament because Jesus wasn’t born yet.

God’s plan of salvation has not changed. He has made Jesus the only name under heaven by which we may be saved. This is why the holy souls of the OT waited for Him.

Even Abraham could not get into heaven right away because Jesus had not yet paid the price for all sin yet.

Now you are beginning to get the picture. All the holy souls waited to see the day of Christ, so that the gates of heaven would be open, and they could enter.

The teaching may have eventually be corrected

No, this was just a bad practice, never a teaching of the Church. Clerics acting badly do not equate to Apostolic Teaching, which is preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

present to the mass as the will of God through the church.

Sadly there have been many misdirected ideas over the course of history that have been presented to people as the will of God. This does not make them teachings of the Church. They are just the product of wolves in sheeps clothing.

 

[guanophore]

So when the Pope says pay money to buy forgiveness, he is not doing it in his name, he’s using the authority of the church to do it and enforce it.

He did. I have no doubt he is paying the price for his simony.

He is abusing his power and position in the church.

Indeed.

He not saying “hey this is what I say”, no he’s saying “this is what God says” that’s why the people followed along.

Many did, yes.

But that still does not make this wrongdoing a teaching of the Church.

 

[medwigel]

It was ABSOLUTELY taught and enforced by the Catholic church.

Are you crazy!
The church had the power to enforce countless things. They couldn’t force the people to pay but they did have priest reinforcing the practice.
The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by the church!

Face it, the church was teaching wrong doctrine.
I love how when an example of wrong doctrine is presented to you, you find some way to twist it and say “but that wasn’t the church”, but it was. So much so that the leaders of the church had to get together to correct the wrong teaching.

 

[medwigel]

He not saying “hey this is what I say”, no he’s saying “this is what God says” that’s why the people followed along.

I hate to burst your bubble but that is exactly what that means.
The church taught something wrong that many people were following.
The very thing you said could not happen just did.

And guess what, Peter saw this coming, that’s way he gave warning against false teachers IN THE CHURCH, who try to destroy the body of Christ
2 Peter 2:1
…and so did Jesus
Matthew 7:15-20

 

[guanophore]

They couldn’t force the people to pay but they did have priest reinforcing the practice.

I am glad we agree about something! Not even a priest promoting a wrong practice does not equate to the “church enforcing” anything.

Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by the church!

Is that so? What makes you believe this?

One must bear in mind that in those days, there was no separation of Church and State as we enjoy now. People who denied the faith were considered treasonous to the political authorities.

I love how when an example of wrong doctrine is presented to you, you find some way to twist it and say “but that wasn’t the church”, but it was.

I understand that you believe this must have been a doctrine of the Church, but you have yet to supply any evidence that it was.

A good example is the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead.

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? I Cor. 15

Paul uses this practice as an example that supports the Apostolic teaching that baptism saves. But the Apostles never taught that there should be baptism on behalf of the dead. To this day, the Mormons “baptize” the dead to ensure that they will be counted among the saved. he fact that people do these things does not equate to a doctrine of the faith, or taught by the Church.

So much so that the leaders of the church had to get together to correct the wrong teaching.

This has been the case with all heresies and misunderstandings throughout the history of the Church. The Church makes corrections to prevent the faithful from falling into the error that is being promoted or taught by those in the wrong.

I hate to burst your bubble but that is exactly what that means.

Persons teaching wrong things does not equate to the Church teaching wrong things.

The church taught something wrong that many people were following.

I eagerly await any documentation or evidence you can produce that will demonstrate this behavior was a teaching of the Church, rather that the misleading of greedy men.

 

[medwigel]

I hate to burst your bubble but that is exactly what that means.

This wasn’t just “persons” teaching wrong things, this was doctrine disemenated from Rome- which was the seat of power of the church.

 

[guanophore]

The very thing you said could not have just did.

I am not sure what this means, but if you are saying that I asserted that God promised that the Church would not teach error, you are correct.

And guess what, Peter saw this coming, that’s way he gave warning against false teachers IN THE CHURCH, who try to destroy the body of Christ
2 Peter 2:1
…and so did Jesus
Matthew 7:15-20

They have tried, for sure, but never succeeded. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching and falling into error.

I think you forgot that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

 

[medwigel]

F

I hate to burst your bubble but that is exactly what that means.

Persons teaching wrong things does not equate to the Church teaching wrong things.

This wasn’t just “persons” teaching wrong things, this was doctrine disemenated from Rome- which was the seat of power of the church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as "a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgivBy the apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina[22] of 1 January 1967, Pope Paul VI, responding to suggestions made at the Second Vatican Council, substantially revised the practical application of the traditional doctrine.[23]

He made it clear that the Church’s aim was not merely to help the faithful make due satisfaction for their sins, but chiefly to bring them to greater fervour of charity. For this purpose he decreed that partial indulgences, previously granted as the equivalent of a certain number of days, months, quarantines (forty-day periods) or years of canonical penance, simply supplement, and to the same degree, the remission that those performing the indulgenced action already gain by the charity and contrition with which they do it.[3]en, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".[2]

Well would you look at that, it would seem that indulgences are still an active doctrine in the Catholic church. I thought you said they got rid of it?

 

[guanophore]

The very thing you said could not have just did.

I am not sure what this means, but if you are saying that I asserted that God promised that the Church would not teach error, you are correct.

And guess what, Peter saw this coming, that’s way he gave warning against false teachers IN THE CHURCH, who try to destroy the body of Christ
2 Peter 2:1
…and so did Jesus
Matthew 7:15-20

They have tried, for sure, but never succeeded. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching and falling into error.

I think you forgot that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

 

[medwigel]

They have tried, for sure, but never succeeded. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching and falling into error.

I think you forgot that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Again, the Bible was written for all believers not just Catholics.
The word “Catholic” wasn’t even used until the 2nd century. Prior to that many believers in Christ already existed. So again, I hate to burst your bubble, but you guys are not the only children of God out there in the world and God’s word was written to ALL who believe.
God is not so small that He is limited to one denomination. God’s will is that all men believe not just Catholics.

 

[guanophore]

This wasn’t just “persons” teaching wrong things, this was doctrine disemenated from Rome- which was the seat of power of the church.

I am sure if it was “doctrine disseminated from Rome” then there will be some evidence to support that this is the case. I look forward to seeing it!

In the meantime, I will continue to believe that the Pope wanted credit for finishing St. Peters Basilica, and ordered certain equally greedy and unscrupulous clerics to find ways to fleece the flock for money toward that end.

No amont of any bad behavior from any “seat of power” can replace the doctrines of Christ that are infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes

I am glad you are finally using an authorative source rather than just anti-catholic rhetoric.

Well would you look at that, it would seem that indulgences are still an active doctrine in the Catholic church.

Of course they are!

I thought you said they got rid of it?

No. I said that Trent addressed the misconception that an indulgence could be purchased wtih money. It is not possible to “sell” an indulgence, and to prevent people from being misled, the Church decreed that monetary donations would no longer be accepted to satisfy the temporal consequences of sin.

you guys are not the only children of God out there in the world and God’s word was written to ALL who believe.

I would say that it is written even for those who do not believe. My point is that there were no believers that were not Catholic, and that is why the New Testament was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith.

God is not so small that He is limited to one denomination.

While I agree with you about God, it must be noted that Catholicism is not a denomination. It is the Church founded by the Apostles from which all the Protestants have denominated. Protestant ecclesial communities are defined by how much, and which parts of the Apostolic faith they reject.

God’s will is that all men believe not just Catholics.

Of course! It is God’s will that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth, which is Catholic.

 

[medwigel]

Of course! It is God’s will that all be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth, which is Catholic

The truth is Christ

 

[medwigel]

I would say that it is written even for those who do not believe. My point is that there were no believers that were not Catholic, and that is why the New Testament was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith.

Yes there were because the word Catholic did not come about until the 2nd century because they were trying to distinguish themselves from other believers so “Catholics” were not the first group.

 

[medwigel]

No. I said that Trent addressed the misconception that an indulgence could be purchased wtih money. It is not possible to “sell” an indulgence, and to prevent people from being misled, the Church decreed that monetary donations would no longer be accepted to satisfy the temporal consequences of sin.

Either way, this doctrine of indulgences goes against the Word of God. You are basically saying that Jesus dying on the cross for your sins is not enough, and you have to work the gain forgiveness through self effort instead of just accepting the free gift of forgiveness the Christ offered us through His blood through grace.
So if you have to work for forgiveness what was the point of Jesus coming to earth, living as a man and subjecting Himself to His creation to suffer and die a horrible and cursed death on the cross if we could just have our sins forgiven by acts and works?

You need to read the book of Galatians.

 

[Cathoholic]

medwigel . . .

. . . the word Catholic did not come about until the 2nd century because they were trying to distinguish themselves from other believers . . .

That is just not true medwigel.

I’ll refer you to a post from steve-b

From steve-b . . . .

Debating with protestants who just won't listen Apologetics

Okay, so that if I were to go back to let’s say, the 1st century apostolic writings I will see this word? Uh… no the Church did not begin around the world, it slowly evangelized and became universal. You’ve been shown the answer many times already. Denying that doesn’t help you Acts 9:31 From the Greek Study Bible Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Translation: ἐκκλησία = church http://bibleapps.com/greek/1577.htm , καθ’ = according to http://bibleapps.com/greek/2596.htm , ὅλης = …

 

[Cathoholic]

Medwigel . . .

God’s word was written to ALL who believe.

.

Well medwigel. I would ALSO state . . .

.

God’s word was given orally to ALL who believe too.

But frequently they reject it.

.

God’s word is passed on incorrupt by the Magisterium to ALL too who believe as well.

Yet many reject this too.

 

[guanophore]

The truth is Christ

Yes! There is no separation between the Head and His One Body, the Church.

Yes there were because the word Catholic did not come about until the 2nd century because they were trying to distinguish themselves from other believers so “Catholics” were not the first group.

It seems you are missing a bit of your own family history medwigel. The terrm “Catholic” was in regular use by 107 AD, and was known and used by the members of the Church founded by Christ. It was called that to distinguish it from heretics. There was then, as there is now, only One Faith, One Baptism, One Church. The scriptures clearly teach against schismatics and dissentors.

When you look at the early Church, it is clear that it is organized around the successors of the Apostles, the bishops. Those not in unity with the Catholic Bishop were considered to be outsides.