The Church of Jesus Christ was never in apostacy?

[Hisalone]

The selling of indulgences is a sin in my eyes, The whole Catholic church cannot be in apostacy because one of her members falls into sin.

That’s like saying When I sin, or a priest sins, or a bishop sins, or the Pope sins, the whole Catholic church falls into apostacy?. This is a unreasonable argument for an apostate Catholic church.

Apostate is one who denies his faith for another faith. For example Martin Luther, denied his Catholic faith, and took parts with him and started his own belief system of Sola fide,sola scriptura, now I learn Sola gratia. Does this mean that because Martin Luther went into apostacy, that the whole Catholic church went into apostacy? See how ridiculous your arguments appear to be for an apostacised Catholic church, on the basis of One who decided to sell indulgences, You claim because of this one person or persons,the whole Catholic church went into apostacy. It does not prove the Catholic church went into apostacy.** I can think up worst things than selling of indulgences that Bishops did in history** that did not bring this Lie about the Catholic church falling into apostacy.

You cant Judge the whole Catholic church by one mans sin to judge the whole Church sinned. I think the lesson that applies here is when one hurts we all hurt, not in the pretense you pretend to make it an apostacy of the whole Catholic church.

The thing to remember if the Catholic church went into apostacy, That means your Christianity never was. Because your Christianity comes from the Catholic church. Something to ponder. Catholicism brought the world the Apostolic Christianity of Jesus Christ.

The lie is that the Catholic Church is “the Fullness of Faith” the lie is that the Catholic Church has replaced Isreal in the Abrahamic covenant. the lie is that the Catholic Church “is” the church that is that is the Bride of Christ.
Those are the lies.

 

[KJK80]

Those are the lies.

What do you base this knowledge on? Surely this isn’t mere slander? You must be able to give us solid information to prove your statements without a shadow of a doubt… So bring it on!

 

[Hisalone]

Not one of my questions have you answered. You make all these silly and ridiculous claims yet you refuse to back them up.

Al-Masih Qam!

Andrew

I have answered your question. Because you dont like my answer does not mean I didnt mean I didnt answer you.

 

[Hisalone]

What do you base this knowledge on? Surely this isn’t mere slander? You must be able to give us solid information to prove your statements without a shadow of a doubt… So bring it on!

Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The lie is that the Catholic Church is “the Fullness of Faith” the lie is that the Catholic Church has replaced Isreal in the Abrahamic covenant. the lie is that the Catholic Church “is” the church that is that is the Bride of Christ.
Those are the lies.

Oh ye! show me prove, dont just say it.

 

[KJK80]

Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

I don’t have to.

You prove to me scripturally that Protestant’s are correct in worshiping on Sunday and not keeping the seventh-day Sabbath holy. It’s Protestant’s that took on sola scriptura… so let me see where Sunday can be defended and well defined on the Bible alone. Then maybe we’ll discuss your other points.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

where do you think the apostolic church is? or what church is the apostolic church? because Jesus built a Church, and this church is here whether you believe or not.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

“The Catholic faith has the power to produce civilizations and not just denominations.” You look around and even if you hate icons, even if you despise statues and regard them as idols, nevertheless, oh can those Catholics erect fine statues!

unknown author.

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures themselves claim to the Word of God. Surely you are familar with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says:
16 **All Scripture is inspired by God **and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

It is God Who makes the Scriptures inspired-inerrant and not the church.

Yes, the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. Yes, they are inspired by God. But how do you know that the book you have in your hand is a collection of such documents? The OT is not the same as the one finally formalized by the Jews, and the NT was selected from among over 400 documents, most of them claiming to be inspired, and many of which were also considered profitable for teaching, reproof, and for training in righteousness

 

[KJK80]

Yes, the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. Yes, they are inspired by God. But how do you know that the book you have in your hand is a collection of such documents? The OT is not the same as the one finally formalized by the Jews, and the NT was selected from among over 400 documents, most of them claiming to be inspired, and many of which were also considered profitable for teaching, reproof, and for training in righteousness

Maybe ja4 has a different definition of “profitable” than the rest of the world…

But just in case…

prof·it·a·ble (prŏf’ĭ-tə-bəl)
adj. Yielding profit; advantageous or lucrative. See Synonyms at beneficial.

Hmm, advantageous… not quite the ruling truth yet… There’s gotta be a scripture that backs the Bible being the only inerrant word of God there somewhere though! Keep looking!

 

[guanophore]

It is God Who makes the Scriptures inspired-inerrant and not the church.

Yes, the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. Yes, they are inspired by God. But how do you know that the book you have in your hand is a collection of such documents? The OT is not the same as the one finally formalized by the Jews, and the NT was selected from among over 400 documents, most of them claiming to be inspired, and many of which were also considered profitable for teaching, reproof, and for training in righteousness

To try to separate the production of Scripture from the Church is not approproate. The Spirit used “men, inspired by God”. In addition, the entire contents of the NT emanates from Sacred Tradition.

Yes. The word “inspired” in 2 Timothy 3:16 means—to breathe or blow. Prompted by God, divinely inspired, occurs only in 2 Tim. 3:16 in the NT
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.)

Indeed, just as the Church is “God-Breathed”

John 20:20-23
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Since they both come from the same Source (God) they are equal in authority and value.

That would mean you are talking about the NT since these are the only teachings of Jesus. There are no teachings of Jesus outside the NT…

Yes, the NT comes entirely from Sacred Tradition. The Church received and taught all of it at least two decades before it began to be written. however, there is much that Jesus and the Apostles taught that is not found in the NT. You do not have access to most of these, because you reject the majority of the Sacred Tradition.

Is the teaching of the assumption of Mary and praying the rosary at the infallible level?

The Assumption of Mary is a Doctrine of the church, and is considered infallible. Praying the Rosary is a private devotion, and is not binding on the whole Church. This is a devotion that is not commonly used in the Eastern Rites.

What part is this?

Heb 12:22-24
22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.

The santified are those members of the Church who have finished the race. Since nothing impure can enter heaven, they are pure. They are the spirits of just men made perfect. Also present in the Kingdom of Heaven are the Angels, who are also pure, and the Source of the purity of the Church, Jesus, her head. There is no error or spot found here at all. The only fallible part of the Church is the church militant, the members of the body who have not yet finished the race.

Has the catholic church ever lied?

No, but countless fallible members of her have. May God have mercy on their souls.

5 "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Matt 18:5-6

I look at these posts as discussions. If a person is making a claim then its proper to ask them what they mean by the terms they use.

This is quite disingenous, ja4. You are well aware that Catholics believe that the Church is Holy, and infallible. To ask such a question, therefore, is akin to asking “so, when did you stop beating your wife?” It is a subtle way to make an accusation, and therefore, calumny.

What i expierence from many catholics on these forums is a lot of assumptions without asking for clarifications. Is it not a good idea to understand what a person means by the terms they use?
Not to understand clearly what a person means can lead to the wrong conclusions or the wrong idea what they mean.

You think we may not have a consensus about what the concept of “lie” might mean? Do you honestly wish to purport here that posing the question “has the Catholic Church ever lied?” is somehow resulting from a misunderstanding of the term “lie”?

Jesus identified Himself fully with His Bride, the Church. So, you are asking us “did Jesus ever lie?” What would be the goal of such a question, except to sow toxin?

He is probably trying to get you to think.
A technique by asking questions, Instead of you just regurgatating what has been spoon fed to you?

Yes, he has admitted that his goal here is to show Catholics the error of their religion, and convert us all to “bible christians”. However, I think, here at CAF, you will find the largest collection of non-spoon fed Catholics anywhere in the world. I have yet to encounter any Catholics here who have not studied their faith for years, and for many of us, spent a significant portion of life energy and time in discernment. On the contrary, what I see here is non-Catholics, some of whom have been spoon fed bigotry and falsehoods about Catholicism, trying to spoon feed it to us!

 

[peary]

The lie is that the Catholic Church is “the Fullness of Faith” the lie is that the Catholic Church has replaced Isreal in the Abrahamic covenant. the lie is that the Catholic Church “is” the church that is that is the Bride of Christ.
Those are the lies.

It’s amazing how you come into this forum and accuse Christ’s Church of promoting lies. In essence, you are accusing us of such profanation too. That is one of the last bastions of a desolate mind when one runs out of using his or her God-given reasoning ability. Why do you even bother to come in here with such an attitude? We deserve an apology due to your arrogance.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus does not lie.
The Catholic Church is not Jesus.

Why do you think Jesus speaks of the Church as though it were Himself?

Acts 9:4-6
5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;”

We are not God, He is.

True, but to the extent that we are in union with Him, we enter into His Truth. It is true, that He does not lie, and when we are in union with Him, we will not either.

The lie is that the Catholic Church is “the Fullness of Faith” the lie is that the Catholic Church has replaced Isreal in the Abrahamic covenant. the lie is that the Catholic Church “is” the church that is that is the Bride of Christ.
Those are the lies.

It appears that this is a load of BS that you have been spoon fed. In fact, all these things are true!

It is good you are here, because this is the best place for you to learn the truth, if you are willing to reconsider what you have been spoon fed.

Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

I can’t see that any of these have anything to do with the doctrine of the Church. However, how do you define “apostolic church”?

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by Hisalone
Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

"Show me…show me…show me… show me… show me…"
How about somebody showing you the door?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Show me where the apostlic church prayed to Mary.
Show me where the apostolic church had statues and other idols inside their church.
Show me where the apostolic church taught purgatory.
Show me where the apostolic church taught indulgences.
Show me where the apostolic church taught a celibate priestly class.

This is a very interesting post. Can you show us for certain that the apostolic church didn’t pray to Mary, have statues, teach purgatory or indulgences? Until someone shows something one way or the other, your can’t really make your point. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say.

From what I’ve read, celibacy for priests is nowhere prohibited.(Have you found that it is?) It’s less of a teaching in Catholicism than it is a dicipline. Women don’t cover their heads in my church either, but I doubt that indicates apostacy.

 

[Lampo]

The Scriptures themselves claim to the Word of God.

You believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God because the Bible says so? If you think about that, it’s actually a bit of a logical inconsistency.

The Koran states very plainly that it is the inerrant Word of God. Do you believe the Koran is the Word of God because the Koran says it is? You don’t, do you? If, in this post, I claimed that this post was the Word of God, would you believe it? After all, the post says the post is the Word of God. But, you wouldn’t believe that, would you? Of course not.

If you don’t believe my post is the Word of God, even if it said it was; and you don’t believe the Koran is the Word of God, even though it says it is, then why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God simply because the Bible says so?

What I’m hoping to do here is make you realize that you are actually not relying just upon the Bible in your belief that the Bible is the Word of God, but also upon some authority other than the Bible itself. There has to be some authority, outside of the Bible, that confirms the Bible is what we think it is – the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

The Bible says that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” But, what is Scripture? How do we know, for example, that the Gospel of Mark is Scripture? The Bible never tells us that it is. The Gospel of Mark never says it is Scripture. It never says it is the inspired Word of God. So, how do we know it is? Yes, all Scripture is God-breathed, but how do we know what is and is not Scripture? Who told you? Who told me? How do you know who wrote Mark? The title, “The Gospel of Mark,” is not inspired Scripture – it was put in there by the publisher. So, who wrote Mark? If someone named Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark, then which Mark wrote Mark?

Now, you might say it doesn’t matter who wrote Mark. But it does. It actually matters a great deal. The Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture, if and only if the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote it. But, if we don’t know which Mark wrote Mark, then how can we know that it is inspired Scripture? None of these questions are answered by the Bible itself. Which means, we got the answer to those questions from somewhere else…but where?

The question of where we got the Bible, is actually a central question to the Christian Faith. All Christians need to realize this. And, when all Christians do realize this, it will work towards greater unity amongst the various Christian faith traditions. The books of the New Testament were written separately over a period of anywhere from 40-60 years or so after the death of Jesus. They were written in different places, at different times, and sent to different people in different cities throughout the ancient Roman Empire. How did these different books and letters come to be regarded as Scripture? How did they find their way into what we now call the Bible? Who put the Bible together as we have it today? This is important because if we cannot trust the veracity of the folks who put together the Bible, then we cannot trust the veracity of the Bible itself. That’s why these questions are so important.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3486209]
Originally Posted by justasking4
That would mean you are talking about the NT since these are the only teachings of Jesus. There are no teachings of Jesus outside the NT…
.
guanophore
Yes, the NT comes entirely from Sacred Tradition. The Church received and taught all of it at least two decades before it began to be written. however, there is much that Jesus and the Apostles taught that is not found in the NT. You do not have access to most of these, because you reject the majority of the Sacred Tradition.

Nonsense. You and the catholic church does not know nor can it know what Jesus taught and did outside the NT since we have no record of it. To say that you it is “Sacred Tradition” is being deceitful on your part since you well know there is no evidence for it. Hiding behind some kind “Sacred Tradition” won’t do.

 

[justasking4]

Lampo;3486868]You believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God because the Bible says so? If you think about that, it’s actually a bit of a logical inconsistency.

The Koran states very plainly that it is the inerrant Word of God. Do you believe the Koran is the Word of God because the Koran says it is? You don’t, do you? If, in this post, I claimed that this post was the Word of God, would you believe it? After all, the post says the post is the Word of God. But, you wouldn’t believe that, would you? Of course not.

If you don’t believe my post is the Word of God, even if it said it was; and you don’t believe the Koran is the Word of God, even though it says it is, then why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God simply because the Bible says so?

One of the tests for the Scriptures being the Word of God would be also what the Scriptures say about themselves. In the OT many of the prophets claimed what they were saying was exactly that— “Thus says the Lord” for example.

What I’m hoping to do here is make you realize that you are actually not relying just upon the Bible in your belief that the Bible is the Word of God, but also upon some authority other than the Bible itself. There has to be some authority, outside of the Bible, that confirms the Bible is what we think it is – the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

That authority would be the HS ultimately.

The Bible says that “all Scripture is God-breathed.” But, what is Scripture? How do we know, for example, that the Gospel of Mark is Scripture? The Bible never tells us that it is. The Gospel of Mark never says it is Scripture. It never says it is the inspired Word of God. So, how do we know it is? Yes, all Scripture is God-breathed, but how do we know what is and is not Scripture? Who told you? Who told me? How do you know who wrote Mark? The title, “The Gospel of Mark,” is not inspired Scripture – it was put in there by the publisher. So, who wrote Mark? If someone named Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark, then which Mark wrote Mark?

Now, you might say it doesn’t matter who wrote Mark. But it does. It actually matters a great deal. The Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture, if and only if the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote it. But, if we don’t know which Mark wrote Mark, then how can we know that it is inspired Scripture? None of these questions are answered by the Bible itself. Which means, we got the answer to those questions from somewhere else…but where?

The question of where we got the Bible, is actually a central question to the Christian Faith. All Christians need to realize this. And, when all Christians do realize this, it will work towards greater unity amongst the various Christian faith traditions. The books of the New Testament were written separately over a period of anywhere from 40-60 years or so after the death of Jesus. They were written in different places, at different times, and sent to different people in different cities throughout the ancient Roman Empire. How did these different books and letters come to be regarded as Scripture? How did they find their way into what we now call the Bible? Who put the Bible together as we have it today? This is important because if we cannot trust the veracity of the folks who put together the Bible, then we cannot trust the veracity of the Bible itself. That’s why these questions are so important.

You bring up some good questions here. I’m quite familar with how the canon of Scripture came about.
How did the Jews of the OT know which books of the OT were inspired before the church age? How did they know which books belonged in the OT canon and those which did not?

 

[peary]

Fundamentalists throw out and banter about the phrase “God-breathed” so much that I’m getting an asthma attack ****

 

[justasking4]

Fundamentalists throw out and banter about the phrase “God-breathed” so much that I’m getting an asthma attack ****

I can understand you feeling this way if i had to rely on what you do