The Bible is Catholic -

[Lilyflower]

Protestant 101 posted:

The Bible itself declares that the Scriptures were in existence well before a Roman Catholic Church was on the scene.

Well that is an historical fact. We all know there was a time when the CC was not. We also know there was a time when Christ was not incarnate of the BVM and that there was a time before Abraham.

But since the time of the Lord, His Church from Pentecost Sunday have been proclaiming the Gospel even before it was committed to writing. So how could their proclamation have proceeded them? That is a contradiction

I have the most profound respect for my Protestant breathren. But I am aware the Catholic and Orthodox Church was before Protestantism begun. I have every faith they will be when Protestantism has gone!

By that I mean gone by being diversified and sub-divided into ever smaller sub-divisions.

I believe we may know her by her unity and strength. Some-ONE is obviously sustaining her

 

[mercygate]

Hmmm, that doesn’t really seem like a “prophecy” for in Luke 1:28 the angel had previously told Mary that she was “blessed,” and Elizabeth, in vs. 42 told Mary she was 'blessed," so with Mary repeating this AFTER being told twice, it cannot be seen as a true prophecy.

There are many others in the Bible called “blessed,” even way back in Gen.30:13, where Leah said she was called “blessed.”

The Catholic “interpretation” of the Bible is the only thing that is Catholic; and Roman Catholic at that, but the Bible certainly is neither. The Bible itself declares that the Scriptures were in existence well before a Roman Catholic Church was on the scene.

How would it not be prophecy for a human being to receive a divine message and then repeat it?

I do not know how the New Testament Scriptures (except in the mind of God) could have existed before they were written. The New Testament certainly did not exist in document form BEFORE the Church was breathed into existence on Pentecost.

 

[Lilyflower]

My dear Protestant 101, when do you think the Catholic Church began?

Blessings and peace

 

[Lilyflower]

Originally Posted by Protestant101
Nice apologetics here; to accuse someone of calling Jesus such things; but absolutely nothing to do with reality or truth. The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant.

My emphasis

I…have now got up from my seat…phew…never laughed so much in all my life… nearly had a funny turn

Protestant = Protest-ant. If the Protestant community was in the very beginning: Against whom were the first Protest-ants protesting?

Actually the first or early Church was both Catholic and Orthodox.

The first name was ‘The Way’ a name coined by the Jesuits.

Protestant 101 posted:The only problem is that “Church” in the singular, as referenced in the Bible does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church. It just isn’t there.

You are absolutely right

‘Roman Catholic’ is your name for us, not ours

I guess that is why you coined the name ‘Roman’ so that once established you could then say “see, ‘Roman’ is not mentioned in the Bible!”

Actually ‘Catholic’ is not a noun but an adjective. It is not what she is called, but what she is

Her name is ‘The Church’

Blessings and peace to you Protestant 101

 

[mercygate]

Nice apologetics here; to accuse someone of calling Jesus such things; but absolutely nothing to do with reality or truth. The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant.

Protestant? This is a classical example of anachronism. Against what was this “true” early church that was never Catholic protesting? I don’t believe you actually wrote that. You must have clicked the “submit” button without thinking. Please tell me you goofed.

 

[Lilyflower]

The Bible is the Handbook of the Church, so what is the question?

I think that what Protestant 101 is referring to is the small number of communities that sprung up such as those which some think existed in England and Scotland before Missionaries arrived en-masse.

How long did they survive?

Where are they today?

 

[po18guy]

So help me out how was it that Paul become an apostle? He was not a big fan of Christ during his life and clearly would not have been along for most of the major events. Yet the Bible is vary clear that he was an Apostle. Why would a major change apostle for bishops be made and not recorded by someone who was an apostle?

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

As to doctrine the word Trinity nor any significant pointer to it are in the Bible. Neither was the baptism of infants and many other practices and traditions which while the CC is more than welcome to have they are not Biblical.

2 Peter 1:19-20 (King James Version) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Your answer. You may be handicapped by being bible only. Christ never wrote, produced, advocated, assembled, canonized or otherwise authorized a bible. Shocked? Those He Himself taught were not.

Christ’s peace.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Nice apologetics here; to accuse someone of calling Jesus such things; but absolutely nothing to do with reality or truth. The promises you are claiming were not specific to one denomination; (eg., Catholics) especially considering **the first or early church was never Catholic; it was Protestant./**QUOTE]

LOL

How could it be Protestant if there was no complete Bible to serve as the sole rule of faith?

(The Bible wasn’t officially compiled until the late 4th century.)

How did “Protestants” from the first to the late fourth century understand God’s Word with no complete Bible, then?

Are you saying what limited sacred writings “Protestants” had during those times was sufficient?

 

[JRKH]

To assume that a major change was made in how the church was run and that the CC happened to guess it right, but there is no documentation is way out there. I do agree with you that a lot of what the apostles taught was not recorded. Which leads one towards the value of a living prophet.

So if the Bible is not 100% express you can do whatever you want . That starting to sound like a Wiccan concept.

I’m not assuming anything. The Church is set up in the way the Spirit wants it to be.
Our “Living Prophet” is the Holy Spirit Promised by Our Lord, sent by the Father and working thourgh The Holy Catholic Church.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

1 Timothy 3:1
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

2 Peter 1:19-20 (King James Version) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Your answer. You may be handicapped by being bible only. Christ never wrote, produced, advocated, assembled, canonized or otherwise authorized a bible. Shocked? Those He Himself taught were not.

Christ’s peace.

I think Bishops are very important. They just are not Apostles.

I’m well aware that the Bible is not the only information source, but most Christians accept the Bible and I’m confident in saying that the writings in it predate Catholic dogma. As far as “private” interpretation agree that authoritative interpretation should be left to the prophets of God, but I’ll not trust common men no matter how well intentioned to do it for me.

 

[mercygate]

I think Bishops are very important. They just are not Apostles.

I’m well aware that the Bible is not the only information source, but most Christians accept the Bible and I’m confident in saying that the writings in it predate Catholic dogma. As far as “private” interpretation agree that authoritative interpretation should be left to the prophets of God, but I’ll not trust common men no matter how well intentioned to do it for me.

What is a prophet? How do you determine whether someone is a prophet or a “common” man?

How does the role of prophet differ from the role of a bishop and apostle?

 

[Eden]

You are absolutely right

‘Roman Catholic’ is your name for us, not ours

I guess that is why you coined the name ‘Roman’ so that once established you could then say “see, ‘Roman’ is not mentioned in the Bible!”

Actually ‘Catholic’ is not a noun but an adjective. It is not what she is called, but what she is

Her name is ‘The Church’

Blessings and peace to you Protestant 101

Exactly. We are the universal Church established by Jesus Christ at Pentecost. Katholikos is the Greek word for “universal” or “throughout the whole world”. We are “the Church” and the word “Catholic” just emphasizes that we are the Church universal.

 

[teancum79]

What is a prophet? How do you determine whether someone is a prophet or a “common” man?

How does the role of prophet differ from the role of a bishop and apostle?

Apostle and prophets are pretty close, but apostles where not around before the time of Christ.

They are men chosen by God and who receive authority from him. They have the authority to speak for God. Bishops are similar on a smaller scale.They are responsible for a small group and don’t have authority to define doctrine.

The key thing is that they are called by God. I think a lot of every wise and well meaning people and even every well educated can do a lot of good, but much like the apostles of Christs time and the Jewish leaders of their day one had tradition the other had God’s authority.

 

[Stephen168]

Apostle and prophets are pretty close, but apostles where not around before the time of Christ.

They are men chosen by God and who receive authority from him. They have the authority to speak for God. Bishops are similar on a smaller scale.They are responsible for a small group and don’t have authority to define doctrine.

The key thing is that they are called by God. I think a lot of every wise and well meaning people and even every well educated can do a lot of good, but much like the apostles of Christs time and the Jewish leaders of their day one had tradition the other had God’s authority.

Do you have any New Testament references for God choosing an Apostle?

They are men chosen by God and who receive authority from him. They have the authority to speak for God.

What does the word apostle mean?

What does the word prophet mean?

 

[mercygate]

Apostle and prophets are pretty close, but apostles where not around before the time of Christ.

Mmm. In the Septuagint, although the noun “apostle” occurs only once, the verb forms ‘aposttello’ and ‘exapostello’ are used some 700 times to denote authorization of a messenger. In Jn 20, Our Lord says to the Apostles – who are called Apostles in this pericope – “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” So while you are correct in observing that the title “apostle” is a New Testament phenomenon, the function and the language are present in the OT.

They are men chosen by God and who receive authority from him. They have the authority to speak for God. Bishops are similar on a smaller scale.They are responsible for a small group and don’t have authority to define doctrine.

How did this distinction arise?

The key thing is that they are called by God.

Who? Apostles? or Prophets?

I think a lot of every wise and well meaning people and even every well educated can do a lot of good, but much like the apostles of Christs time and the Jewish leaders of their day one had tradition the other had God’s authority.

Are you saying that the Apostles had no tradition?

 

[teancum79]

Do you have any New Testament references for God choosing an Apostle?

What does the word apostle mean?

from what I know Apostles are witnesses of Christ. Specifically chosen for that not somebody who happened to see him do something. Christ picked the 12. When Judas pulled his stunt he was replaced by the agreement of the 11. Having the HS guide a decision like that is a way for God to pick.

 

[teancum79]

Mmm. In the Septuagint, although the noun “apostle” occurs only once, the verb forms ‘aposttello’ and ‘exapostello’ are used some 700 times to denote authorization of a messenger. In Jn 20, Our Lord says to the Apostles – who are called Apostles in this pericope – “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” So while you are correct in observing that the title “apostle” is a New Testament phenomenon, the function and the language are present in the OT.

How did this distinction arise?

Who? Apostles? or Prophets? Are you saying that the Apostles had no tradition?

I’m not saying there was no tradition, but the apostles for the most part where not well educated. They broke from the norm that was based on history and a limited and I think we can agree inaccurate view of the Law of Moses.

God has been calling people to do his work for a long time. They typically receive their authority from one who has it by the laying on of hands and serve in the capacity God assigns. Sometimes they are quite well known like Moses and others are more in the back ground.

 

[Stephen168]

from what I know Apostles are witnesses of Christ. Specifically chosen for that not somebody who happened to see him do something. Christ picked the 12. When Judas pulled his stunt he was replaced by the agreement of the 11. Having the HS guide a decision like that is a way for God to pick.

So the HS is God.

Are Apostles spokesmen for God or witnesses of Christ?

Could God just pick anyone to be an Apostle?

 

[teancum79]

So the HS is God.

Are Apostles spokesmen for God or witnesses of Christ?

Could God just pick anyone to be an Apostle?

the HS is a member of the Godhead and not to be to disrespectful errand boy.

Apostles tend to be both.

Whom the Lord calls the Lord qualifies.

 

[Stephen168]

Apostle and prophets are pretty close, but apostles where not around before the time of Christ.

Why were the Twelve called Apostles (to send forth) and not Prophets (spokesman)?