The Bible is a “Catholic Book”

[reteeks21]

My Catholic brothers and sisters…

The above is an example of what happens when one simply seeks to protest the Church built by Christ, rather than seek the truth. I for one pray that the hostility and falsehoods toward the Church Jesus built will be replaced by truth and love.

No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.

Fifteen hundred years later, an excommunicated heretic started to spread falsehoods and lies about the Church built by Christ, including the papacy. Martin Luther leaves a legacy of heresy, and no valid priesthood in his man made church. Other men protested the true Church as well. It’s no surprise that people who follow these heretical teachings, believe in his lies, and have contempt for the Church built by Christ still continue this man made tradition.

My friends, quite differently, the papacy survives today and continues the work of Christ who instituted the position of rock of His Church. The Holy Spirit protects the rock, and Jesus will be with His Church until the end of time, with valid Sacraments such as the incomparable Holy Eucharist, which bonds us to Christ, and in which we receive the infinite merits of His passion and death in our lives.

I know it makes you feel good to bless us with pious platitudes, but for your information I was not trying to attack the RCC. I was simply pointing out what actually happened as Scripture tells us. Why could you not address what I had to say? Would it have been too hard to say that what I brought up can actually be found in Scripture.

Please point me to sources about Peter’s death in Rome and I will gladly study it. I never once brought up that Peter is not the Pope. You assumed that. I could care less whether you consider me a heretic; your opinions about me don’t matter at all. But I do take issue with your gross assumption that I am following heretical teaching which lead me to protest your church. Nowhere in my post did I do that. So instead of spouting off ridiculous assumptions maybe you can address that facts that I brought up in my earlier post.

By the way, my family has a rich tradition of Catholicism, and I have forever loved and enjoyed learning about the RCC. I have never attacked it, and I defend it whenever I can. So watch your words before you start making accusations,

 

[anon52328184]

i didn’t say that those were your words. i studied at the synagogue once and i remember the rabbi’s words that throughout history they have been a target of destruction and they are still around. i believe the class was talking about the number of Jewish people living today as opposed to the early 1900’s and some were wondering if their numbers would continue to decline.
i definitely still feel that God has a special love for the Jewish people. they have been rebellious, but if you ever go to the synagogue, the practicing Jews today are very observant and the 613 commandments given to them by God --they consider to be valid. of course, there are different branches of Judaism and some are more strict than others. please, i know you were not saying anything about the destruction of the lineage of the Jewish people. the rabbi’s words always stuck in my mind. how sad to live as a people and know that people have been trying to destroy you throughout history. who could have thought that the Holocaust could even have happened in the 20th century?!!

 

[MDK]

I know it makes you feel good to bless us with pious platitudes, but for your information I was not trying to attack the RCC. I was simply pointing out what actually happened as Scripture tells us. Why could you not address what I had to say? Would it have been too hard to say that what I brought up can actually be found in Scripture.

Please point me to sources about Peter’s death in Rome and I will gladly study it. I never once brought up that Peter is not the Pope. You assumed that. I could care less whether you consider me a heretic; your opinions about me don’t matter at all. But I do take issue with your gross assumption that I am following heretical teaching which lead me to protest your church. Nowhere in my post did I do that. So instead of spouting off ridiculous assumptions maybe you can address that facts that I brought up in my earlier post.

By the way, my family has a rich tradition of Catholicism, and I have forever loved and enjoyed learning about the RCC. I have never attacked it, and I defend it whenever I can. So watch your words before you start making accusations,

If you “have forever loved and enjoyed reading about the RCC,” then I’d say you appear to be reading about it from the wrong source(s). You don’t really demonstrate a suitable knowledge of the truth about the church. Neither do you demonstrate support for it. Is this what you love reading about, then, the untruths?

I do feel the need to pray for those like you have shown to be. I also have to admit that I pray more for myself, but not because I oppose or deny the Church built by Christ. I pray that I can actually defend the Church, in the real sense of the word.

So, you’re telling us that you were supporting the Catholic Church in post 132? When you deny one of the basic Catholic teachings, like Peter was the Bishop of Rome and was martyred there, you are not attacking it? Is this how you defend the truth of the Church?

If this is your definition of not attacking, or defending, then I hope you won’t be offended if I don’t ask you to defend me!

I stand by what I said. However, you have nothing to fear from me. If you are a heretic, then it’s Christ you are offending.

I hope you won’t be offended if we tell the truth, which refutes Protestantism. The very Scriptures you quote oppose you making your own interpretations conflicting with the Church Christ built.

Forgive me if I don’t trust your intentions… There are resources on Peter’s Roman residence, which can be found by looking in reputable places. If you can’t find them with today’s internet, then I don’t know what I can do for you. If you look for love in all the wrong places, like in protesting the Church, then you’ll never really know the truth about the Church.

 

[MDK]

i didn’t say that those were your words. i studied at the synagogue once and i remember the rabbi’s words that throughout history they have been a target of destruction and they are still around. i believe the class was talking about the number of Jewish people living today as opposed to the early 1900’s and some were wondering if their numbers would continue to decline.
i definitely still feel that God has a special love for the Jewish people. they have been rebellious, but if you ever go to the synagogue, the practicing Jews today are very observant and the 613 commandments given to them by God --they consider to be valid. of course, there are different branches of Judaism and some are more strict than others. please, i know you were not saying anything about the destruction of the lineage of the Jewish people. the rabbi’s words always stuck in my mind. how sad to live as a people and know that people have been trying to destroy you throughout history. who could have thought that the Holocaust could even have happened in the 20th century?!!

Deborah, I appreciate your sensitivity to our ancestors in faith. I saw you were replying to my quote, and trying to get further definition. I believe that I have answered your question completely and sufficiently as it pertains to this thread. I understand where you were coming from as well. Thank you for your comments. May God bless you, and keep you.

 

[reteeks21]

If you “have forever loved and enjoyed reading about the RCC,” then I’d say you appear to be reading about it from the wrong source(s). You don’t really demonstrate a suitable knowledge of the truth about the church. Neither d you demonstrate support for it. Is this what you love reading about, then, the untruths?

**What are you talking about? I used what Scripture says about Peter and Paul. How in the world is that “untruth”? If the Bible is a wrong source then I don’t want to be right. **

I do feel the need to pray for those like you have shown to be. I also have to admit that I pray more for myself, but not because I oppose or deny the Church built by Christ. I pray that I can actually defend the Church, in the real sense of the word.

How in the world have I offended your church? All I did was bring up what Scripture says. It wasn’t an insult; just a written truth.

So, you’re telling us that you were supporting the Catholic Church in post 132? When you deny one of the basic Catholic teachings, like Peter was the Bishop of Rome and was martyred there, you are not attacking it? Is this how you defend the truth of the Church?

If this is your definition of not attacking, or defending, then I hope you won’t be offended if I don’t ask you to defend me!

I stand by what I said. However, you have nothing to fear from me. If you are a heretic, then it’s Christ you are offending.

I hope you won’t be offended if we tell the truth, which refutes Protestantism. **The very Scriptures you quote oppose you making your own interpretations outside Scripture. **

They certainly do not. They are point blank in what they say. Peter clearly got called out, but it didn’t take away from his importance. Can you not even admit that that is what Scripture says?

Forgive me if I don’t trust your intentions… There are resources on Peter’s Roman residence, which can be found by looking in reputable places. If you can’t find them with today’s internet, then I don’t know what I can do for you. If you look for love in all the wrong places, like in protesting the Church, then you’ll never really know the truth about the Church.

**I genuinely asked you to help me find accurate sources, and your respond by insulting my intelligence. **

I love the fact that you continue to refer to us as heretics. You just keep reinforcing the idea that protestants aren’t the ony ill-informed, rude, and judgemental people. I don’t need or want your prayers. I’d rather have it from someone who looks up with me, not down at the rest of us.

 

[anon52328184]

MDK – yes, no further questions. may God bless you and keep you also!

 

[MDK]

I was simply pointing out what actually happened as Scripture tells us. Why could you not address what I had to say? Would it have been too hard to say that what I brought up can actually be found in Scripture.

The very Scriptures you reference, will tell you that not everything Christ did was recorded in Scripture. Are you telling us if it’s not in Scripture, then it didn’t happen? This is heresy, and such a foreign idea to those who know the truth taught in the infallible teaching Church, that this must be corrected first, in order to have solid footing from which to continue a conversation.

Do you maintain that if it’s not in Scripture, then it’s not true?

However, if you knew the political culture of that day and proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, you would understand that “Babyon” was also a code word for Rome.

 

[MDK]

**I genuinely asked you to help me find accurate sources, and your respond by insulting my intelligence. **

I love the fact that you continue to refer to us as heretics. You just keep reinforcing the idea that protestants aren’t the ony ill-informed, rude, and judgemental people. I don’t need or want your prayers. I’d rather have it from someone who looks up with me, not down at the rest of us.

Your view, is not mine.

I don’t refer to your intelligence, but question your motivation. If you were really motivated to find truth, you would seek it yourself. Instead, what you have shown us is quite the contrary.

A heretic is a baptized Christian who has been told the truth, but still denies it and maintains the falsehood. I should have checked first to see whether you have been baptized. If you are baptized, and have been told the truth, but deny it, then yes, you are a heretic. If these shoes fit, then I recommend a different pair of shoes.

I don’t look down on you. However, I do not respect what you have claimed here. It’s not me you need to be concerned with, though. I can’t give you eternal life in Heaven.

 

[reteeks21]

The very Scriptures you reference, will tell you that not everything Christ did was recorded in Scripture. Are you telling us if it’s not in Scripture, then it didn’t happen? This is heresy, and such a foreign idea to those who know the truth taught in the infallible teaching Church, that this must be corrected first, in order to have solid footing from which to continue a conversation.
**
I referenced no such Scripture. Everything I spoke about comes straight from Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and 1 Peter. You say that I need to be informed before we talk, well you go back and read what I was referencing and then maybe you will stop telling me that I’m not reading right. What scripture did you think I was referencing. What you said comes from the book of John; I know it well enough. I never mentioned Jesus. I spoke about Peter and Paul. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Apparently not.**

Do you maintain that if it’s not in Scripture, then it’s not true?

However, if you knew the political culture of that day and proper interpretation of Sacred Scripture, you would understand that “Babyon” was also a code word for Rome.

I know that very well, but what in the world does that have to do with what I mentioned about Peter and Paul? What in the world are you talking about? You keep mentioning things that I have never even written about.

 

[ChristianRoots]

I never claimed they had the fullness, I claimed they were equal. They are humans, god does not send us to hell cause we don’t have certain books.

???How can not having the fullness of Christianity **be equal to **having the fullness of Chrisitanity??? That doesn’t any make sense.

First of all, as Catholics, it did not matter if several early societies had less than the 27 NT current books in their possession. They still had the Church to guide them. Catholics hold the Sacred Traditions of the Church on par, (not greater than) with the Sacred Scriptures.

As a Protestant who practices Sola Scriptura, however, how can you even claim those early societies had the same theology as yours today? Your theology is dervied from 27 books, theirs wasn’t.

And, I agree. Those early societies were not condemned because they lacked all 27 NT books. But this fact can’t be reconciled with the concept of Sola Scriptura. You must think like a Catholic to believe not possessing all 27 NT books was not a spiritual death sentence for those early societies.

 

[MDK]

**I referenced no such Scripture. Everything I spoke about comes straight from Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and 1 Peter. You say that I need to be informed before we talk, well you go back and read what I was referencing and then maybe you will stop telling me that I’m not reading right. What scripture did you think I was referencing. What you said comes from the book of John; I know it well enough. I never mentioned Jesus. I spoke about Peter and Paul. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Apparently not.

I know that very well, but what in the world does that have to do with what I mentioned about Peter and Paul? What in the world are you talking about? You keep mentioning things that I have never even written about.**

Yes, I mention the truth. Your posts are like shifting sand, and you either are incapable or unwilling to understand what I write. You certainly do need to understand some basics before you try to go where you’re trying to reach, which is a false conclusion anyway. That you read or quote is not the issue. Anyone can do that. That you interpret what you read correctly, knowing the context, is the issue.

Also, did I ever claim you did reference a specific Scripture passage? It’s not difficult to understand what was actually said, if one actually desires to do so. What I said was Scriptures, meaning Sacred Scriptures, the collection of such also called the Bible. I’ll make it easy for you…

The very Scriptures you reference, will tell you that not everything Christ did was recorded in Scripture.

also means…

The very Bible you reference, will tell you that not everything Christ did was recorded in Scripture.

My reference to Jesus was to teach you something about what’s in and not in Sacred Scriptures. You would do well to learn what I wrote taught. I don’t honestly believe you are willing to learn, though, as you’ve demonstrated such. In light of that, please go back and read what I wrote. I don’t see the need to further discuss this with you, as one has to be open to truth, and honest in order to have an honest conversation about the truth. Please learn and grow, seeking not just to read and quote, but to know truth.

Please also refrain from putting your words inside my quote, or anyone else’s quote for that matter. Even if you bold the text or change the color, your words inside my quote don’t work. If it’s my quote, please leave it as such. Your words need to be outside my quote.

 

[reteeks21]

Yes, I mention the truth. Your posts are like shifting sand, and you either are incapable or unwilling to understand what I write. You certainly do need to understand some basics before you try to go where you’re trying to reach, which is a false conclusion anyway. That you read or quote is not the issue. Anyone can do that. That you interpret what you read correctly, knowing the context, is the issue.

My reference to Jesus was to teach you something about what’s in and not in Sacred Scriptures. You would do well to learn what I wrote taught. I don’t honestly believe you are willing to learn, though, as you’ve demonstrated such. In light of that, please go back and read what I wrote. I don’t see the need to further discuss this with you, as one has to be open to truth, and honest in order to have an honest conversation about the truth. Please learn and grow, seeking not just to read and quote, but to know truth.

Please also refrain from putting your words inside my quote, or anyone else’s quote for that matter. Even if you bold the text or change the color, your words inside my quote don’t work. If it’s my quote, please leave it as such. Your words need to be outside my quote.

My first post referenced what scripture says about Peter and Paul’s feud regarding Peter’s trouble with Jewish leaders. That is pretty self-explanatory. It’s not a reach. Is there something in there I need to be more aware of? What does Babylon as Rome have to do with anything?

If I am so un-open to the truth, tell me what you are trying to convey to me. Enlighten a closed off heretic like me. I want to know what the point of your posts have been.

By the way, I did not mean to put my words inside your precious quotes. I did not mean to contaminate them. It was an accident. I apologize.

 

[MDK]

My first post referenced what scripture says about Peter and Paul’s feud regarding Peter’s trouble with Jewish leaders. That is pretty self-explanatory. It’s not a reach. Is there something in there I need to be more aware of? What does Babylon as Rome have to do with anything?

If I am so un-open to the truth, tell me what you are trying to convey to me. Enlighten a closed off heretic like me. I want to know what the point of your posts have been.

By the way, I did not mean to put my words inside your precious quotes. I did not mean to contaminate them. It was an accident. I apologize.

We were well beyond your first interpretation of Scripture, and it was simply your interpretation of Acts.

I don’t trust that your motivation is honorable. If you actually seek the truth, the understanding of what Babylon was also used for would help you in determining Peter’s Roman Residence. If you have true desire for truth, you’ll find this. It’s not difficult, but I doubt your motivation.

Read what I wrote for starters. Better yet, read what the Catholic Church teaches. Seek the truth.

I don’t see the need to continue, as it’s currently fruitless. If you have the desire, you will seek and find the truth. I can’t give you desire.

 

[reteeks21]

We were well beyond your first interpretation of Scripture, and it was simply your interpretation of Acts.

I don’t trust that your motivation is honorable. If you actually seek the truth, the understanding of what Babylon was also used for would help you in determining Peter’s Roman Residence. If you have true desire for truth, you’ll find this. It’s not difficult, but I doubt your motivation.

Read what I wrote for starters. Better yet, read what the Catholic Church teaches. Seek the truth.

I don’t see the need to continue, as it’s currently fruitless. If you have the desire, you will seek and find the truth. I can’t give you desire.

I could care less if you think I am dishonorable. I genuinely meant what I asked and said. All you had to do, from the beginning, is explain how Babylon/Rome and Peter were related. That’s pretty a simple thing to do.

From the beginning I have asked you to tell me how what I pointed out exactly what the Bible says (not an interpretation) in Acts is wrong or incorrect. You could not even do that. Can you drop the condescending words and just help me see what you are trying to convey?

By the way, I do seek to learn about the Church. I do not do it so I can bash your church; never in my life have I spoken to anyone, or on this forum about how your church is wrong. I speak and learn about the church pretty regularly with my family and a couple priests friends that I have. I also have a buddy who is a professor and an apologist where I live whom I speak to frequently.
You have no right to question my motives when I have not one time insulted you or your church. Your words have been rude and condescending, which is a shame when all I have done is to ask for answers.

Now, again, how is what I referenced in Acts, Paul’s works, and 1 Peter an incorrect and dishonest interpretation when all I did is write exactly what those works say? Just answer that one question without slamming me, please.

 

[MDK]

I could care less if you think I am dishonorable. I genuinely meant what I asked and said. All you had to do, from the beginning, is explain how Babylon/Rome and Peter were related. That’s pretty a simple thing to do.

From the beginning I have asked you to tell me how what I pointed out exactly what the Bible says (not an interpretation) in Acts is wrong or incorrect. You could not even do that. Can you drop the condescending words and just help me see what you are trying to convey?

By the way, I do seek to learn about the Church. I do not do it so I can bash your church; never in my life have I spoken to anyone, or on this forum about how your church is wrong. I speak and learn about the church pretty regularly with my family and a couple priests friends that I have. I also have a buddy who is a professor and an apologist where I live whom I speak to frequently.
You have no right to question my motives when I have not one time insulted you or your church. Your words have been rude and condescending, which is a shame when all I have done is to ask for answers.

Now, again, how is what I referenced in Acts, Paul’s works, and 1 Peter an incorrect and dishonest interpretation when all I did is write exactly what those works say? Just answer that one question without slamming me, please.

If you had been honest and forthright, you would have received a direct response. As it is, I gave you clues and guidance and ask you to find it yourself. You’re upset because I won’t argue with you, or go with some false criteria for determining the merits of something. If you honestly wanted to find truth, you would just say, thanks for the guidance and clues. I appreciate it… but, instead, your method of asking and subsequent follow-on did not indicate a genuine interest, but an ulterior motive.

I have every right to question your motives, as you keep throwing up red herrings that misguide the topic. That’s why I say you’re dishonest.

Your interpretation of Scriptures is simply incorrect. I have no idea whether you are intentionally misinterpreting it or not. I would give the benefit of the doubt there, that you may just not understand.

Sorry, but your words don’t match up from post to post.

You didn’t simply write what Acts says, you wrote your interpretation… two different things. I can point it out, but you wanted to have the merits of it adhere to false criteria. I will not engage in this kind of game. It’s not for those who honestly seek God.

If you can’t find the truth with the guidance and clue that I’ve given you, then neither will my telling you work out. You would not be willing to accept the truth, because you mock the truth. Your willingness to use these the guidance and clue will get you going in the right direction.

 

[wisdomseeker]

MDK yes, Jesus definitely foretold the destruction of the temple.
but the Jewish people continue to thrive no matter who tries to destroy them so i don’t know if Jesus is actually responsible for the destruction of the temple. yes, i agree that the Church was distinct from its beginning, but there had to be a reason that even after the destruction of the temple the Jewish people did not just drop everything and follow Christianity. i feel God still has a covenant with the Jewish people and he has protected them from destruction by the many cultures that have tried to destroy them.

i dont know if this Parable will help here, but i gave it a try.

Luke 20
9 And he began to speak to the people this parable: A certain man planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen: and he was abroad for a long time. 10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard. Who, beating him, sent him away empty. 11 And again he sent another servant. But they beat him also and, treating him reproachfully, sent him away empty. 12 And again he sent the third: and they wounded him also and cast him out. 13 Then the lord of the vineyard said: What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be, when they see him, they will reverence him. 14 Whom, when the husbandmen saw, they thought within themselves, saying: This is the heir. Let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. 15 So casting him out of the vineyard, they killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and will destroy these husbandmen and will give the vineyard to others. Which they hearing, said to him: God forbid. 17 But he looking on them, said: What is this then that is written, The stone, which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? 18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be bruised: and upon whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

peace.

 

[ChristianKnight]

???How can not having the fullness of Christianity **be equal to **having the fullness of Chrisitanity??? That doesn’t any make sense.

First of all, as Catholics, it did not matter if several early societies had less than the 27 NT current books in their possession. They still had the Church to guide them. Catholics hold the Sacred Traditions of the Church on par, (not greater than) with the Sacred Scriptures.

As a Protestant who practices Sola Scriptura, however, how can you even claim those early societies had the same theology as yours today? Your theology is dervied from 27 books, theirs wasn’t.

And, I agree. Those early societies were not condemned because they lacked all 27 NT books. But this fact can’t be reconciled with the concept of Sola Scriptura. You must think like a Catholic to believe not possessing all 27 NT books was not a spiritual death sentence for those early societies.

…I think you mis-read every word I say. I did not say they are equal in bible size or fullness. I am gonna leave it at that, I am tired.

 

[Jimmy_B]

…Scripture Is Authority… Hence my name SIA.

Hello SIA,

Ah, so that is what “SIA” means, I disagree but now I know a new acronym, thank you.

If “Scripture Is Authority”, then, what are your feelings regarding the Catholic Church, the Church responsible for your being able to read Holy Scripture today?..What about the Church’s “authority”?

Pentecost occurred before the Bible and Pentecost was later described in the Bible, that’s where the “authority” comes from.

If “Scripture is Authority", then wouldn’t the Catholic Church be the “authority” who gave us the Bible, considering the fact that the Church came before the Bible. How about the “authority” found in Sacred Traditions, which also preceded the Bible?

First, came God, then came Holy Traditions, from God and then His, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit… and then came His Holy Scripture….

And finally, about 1500 years after the fact, came Protestants and the printing press and that’s when all the “protesting” started, and people began to think that they were “smarter” than all of the Christians who had ever lived before them and they join the “religion of their own intellect”, where they could have God on their own terms.

Protestantism is an attempt to reinvent Christianity and that attempt to change what was right, has been a disaster, which has caused much of the division in Christianity that we see today.

Christianity has been fractured by the Protestants into at least 36,000 different pieces.

I don’t know if Humpty Dumpty could put Protestantism back together again.

Protestants seem to be concerned about what the Catholic Church teaches, when they need to decide what it is that they believe. Why are there so many different Protestant, non-Catholic Christian denominations today? It is because of nonsense like, “Scripture is Authority” and the false doctrine of “personal interpretation”.

Why the fuss over Catholicism if one is not Catholic, Why don’t Protestant, non-Catholic Christians correct one another when they discover a difference in Protestant beliefs?

Protestantism and non-Catholic Christianity is all about rejection…rejecting Christian truths, which were previously held by all other Christians… This rejection occurs because they have “figured it all out” and they have “realized” that the Bible was their own book, created solely for them, so that they could personally interpret it, in any way, which suits them.

Why would The Roman Catholic Church put a Book, the Bible together, to disprove their own beliefs?

They wouldn’t.

Fortunately, today, many are coming back to the truth and embracing their Holy Christian History, Holy Christian Traditions, the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible - in context.

Explain this please; if Holy Traditions are not important, the why do people get married and baptized? Why are priests and ministers “ordained”? Why do non-Catholic Christians celebrate Christmas?

The Bible was written after early Christian events had already occurred, isn’t this self-evident? The Bible is a record of those events…The Bible records the early Church and records early Sacred Traditions of the Church.

Why all the rejection today?

If one truly believes that “Scripture Is Authority” and I am assuming that you really mean that; Scripture is the sole authority…Am I right? If this is your belief, then your beliefs are in conflict with the Bible itself and in conflict with Christianity.

Why don’t I read any posts here, by non-Catholic Christians, thanking the Catholic Church for the Bible?

One cannot “connect the Christian dots” without first “connecting the Catholic dots”.

Unfortunately, that’s what I believe many here are attempting to do and that is why they will not completely undersatnd the Bible or Christianity…they are leaving out too many “dots”.

Thank you for your post, I look forward to your response.

Peace

 

[anon52328184]

good reply jimmy b.

 

[AlexiaMusing]

Perhaps I miss something. At one time, we were all one Christian church, holy, catholic and apostolic. We agreed at a point in time on what belonged in the canon of sacred texts. Those of us who remain in a holy catholic and apostolic church don’t respond to a Roman Catholic Bible, but a catholic bible, one we claim apostolically to have had a hand in creating. The fact that some found that the papal church had diverged in some respects from what was the teaching of Christ, and separated away from that element doesn’t give rise to claims that the book itself is some property of now the Roman Church up against the Anglican, Lutheran or other apostolic churches. I cannot speak of course for non-apostolic churches.

I guess I’m confused by so many threads here that seem to suggest that there is only ONE catholic and apostolic church. There are several as I see it, all rightfully claiming true apostolic origins. The bible is not about the Roman Catholic Church, it is about the faith of Christianity. We all strive to be the universal church that we assume God wishes us to be. I guess I don’t see this as being pursued here, when dialogue is concerned with how Protestants are apparently taking from doesn’t belong to them. It’s strange. Do Roman Catholics not wish unification? Or do they only wish to it if everyone agrees with their particular take on how the Church should function?