The Mass v. Protestant Services

[Little_Mary]

The Mass existed before the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around.

Every prayer said in the Mass, from opening prayer to the closing prayer, can be found in the Bible.

Catholics are truly the first Bible Christians!

 

[jmcrae]

The Mass existed before the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around.

Every prayer said in the Mass, from opening prayer to the closing prayer, can be found in the Bible.

Catholics are truly the first Bible Christians!

Ayyy-MEN, Sistah!! :extrahappy:

 

[mepatri]

Originally Posted by Little Mary
The Mass existed before the Bible. The Bible came out of the Church, not the other way around.

Every prayer said in the Mass, from opening prayer to the closing prayer, can be found in the Bible.

Catholics are truly the first Bible Christians!

Sorry - but with all do respect - you’re way off here. Think about it for just a few seconds…the Cahtolic Mass consists of two readings - one from the old testament, and one from the new testament. This should give you a clue as to what came about first. Catholics used to revere the Bible, and saw it as their most holy text. Not today, the catechism would qualify for that honor.

Now, if you’re going to be disingenuous, and try to play word games by saying that the Bible did not exist when the Euchrist started, that’s your prerogative. Let’s just say that, the Scriptures that are contained in the compliation of books we commonly call the Holy Bible did indeed exist long before the liturgy of the Mass came about. The Euchrist would not exist, if it were not for the sacred Scripture, and the compilation of 66 different books called
“The Holy Bible.” If you don’t agree, then that would be paramount to you saying that there is no need for the sacred Scriptures in the Euchrist - and that it can stand alone without the word of God. Is that what you’re saying?

If you say the Bible came out of the church, you discount the hundreds of years it took to write the Scriptures and produce the finished product. The old testament was written in Hebrew, long before Catholics existed.

So - what you’re really saying is that Catholics gathered all the pages together, bound them up in a neat little cover, and wrote “Holy Bible” on the front…okay, I can accept that.

 

[mepatri]

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church were established by Jesus Christ, and promulgated throughout the known world by the Apostles and their followers.

If you can show this to be objectively true, either by way of verifiable historical record, or by Scripture, I’d love to see it. I think the only evidence you have is that it’s claimed by the Catholic Church to be true - hence the circular argument you can’t get past. Please, really - if you have evidence of this (not just becasue the Pope says so), I’d love to see it.

 

[mepatri]

Regarding Mary you wrote:

They knew perfectly well that she was sinless. In fact, they were writing about her sinlessness in some of the very first theological works of the Church

.

Really? This doesn’t make sense. Mary stated that she was in need of a savior, and the Bible says there is “no one good -no not one.” Given this, it’s difficult to see that “everyone knew perfectly well that she was sinless.” Mary said:

“My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” [Luke 1:46,47].

Admiting one is in need of a saviour necessarily presumes that one is not “sinless”.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. There are significant differences between what the Bible (the actual word of God) teaches, and what today’s Catholicism teaches.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry - but with all do respect - you’re way off here. Think about it for just a few seconds…the Cahtolic Mass consists of two readings - one from the old testament, and one from the new testament. This should give you a clue as to what came about first. Catholics used to revere the Bible, and saw it as their most holy text. Not today, the catechism would qualify for that honor.

We still revere the Bible if we didn’t we would not use them in our Liturgy. First Reading, Second Reading, and the Gospel Reading.

Now, if you’re going to be disingenuous, and try to play word games by saying that the Bible did not exist when the Euchrist started, that’s your prerogative. Let’s just say that, the Scriptures that are contained in the compliation of books we commonly call the Holy Bible did indeed exist long before the liturgy of the Mass came about. The Euchrist would not exist, if it were not for the sacred Scripture, and the compilation of 66 different books called
“The Holy Bible.” If you don’t agree, then that would be paramount to you saying that there is no need for the sacred Scriptures in the Euchrist - and that it can stand alone without the word of God. Is that what you’re saying?

Technically speaking the Bible which contain OT and NT as One Book did not exist before the Church. There were Scripture from the OT text written in manuscripts or scrolls.

To illustrate my point, in the events in Acts, we see the Church persecuted by the Pharisees. We know this because Jesus said to Saul, “Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me?” Who is Saul persecuting, the Church. The Books of Acts was written 20-30 yrs after the event.

So yes the Church exist before the formation of Canon was established. It was not until the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of 396 AD that made list of canons that ought to be in the Bible. In 382, Pope Damascus I decreed 73 OT Books and 27 NT as inspired word of God. These councils were form because they were other Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Acts of Peter, which were contrary to the mainstream Christianity.

If you say the Bible came out of the church, you discount the hundreds of years it took to write the Scriptures and produce the finished product. The old testament was written in Hebrew, long before Catholics existed.

Yes the Bible which contains Old Testament and New Testment came out of the Church. The word Bible was even unheard of back them. The Scrolls were only know as Scriptures none the less not Bible.

So - what you’re really saying is that Catholics gathered all the pages together, bound them up in a neat little cover, and wrote “Holy Bible” on the front…okay, I can accept that.

Yes they did. That is historical fact.

 

[6YRSHOME]

Sorry - but with all do respect - you’re way off here. Think about it for just a few seconds…the Cahtolic Mass consists of two readings - one from the old testament, and one from the new testament. This should give you a clue as to what came about first. Catholics used to revere the Bible, and saw it as their most holy text. Not today, the catechism would qualify for that honor.

Now, if you’re going to be disingenuous, and try to play word games by saying that the Bible did not exist when the Euchrist started, that’s your prerogative. Let’s just say that, the Scriptures that are contained in the compliation of books we commonly call the Holy Bible did indeed exist long before the liturgy of the Mass came about. The Euchrist would not exist, if it were not for the sacred Scripture, and the compilation of 66 different books called
“The Holy Bible.” If you don’t agree, then that would be paramount to you saying that there is no need for the sacred Scriptures in the Euchrist - and that it can stand alone without the word of God. Is that what you’re saying?

If you say the Bible came out of the church, you discount the hundreds of years it took to write the Scriptures and produce the finished product. The old testament was written in Hebrew, long before Catholics existed.

So - what you’re really saying is that Catholics gathered all the pages together, bound them up in a neat little cover, and wrote “Holy Bible” on the front…okay, I can accept that.

I’d say with no respect. You have no respect for the Catholic church. You have no interest in listening to a word anyone says here except as a prelude to an attack. I suggest you actually go to a Catholic mass before you attempt to describe one. The majority of what goes on at the mass is Biblical. I could describe it from beginning to end but it would only lead to more bashing or it would be completly ignored.
If you are not here with an open mind then I suggest you start backing up some of your claims with proof. That is official Catholic Documents, names, dates and sources.
Otherwise I am liable to think that you are nothing but a Catholic bashing zelot who cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Mannyfit75]

mepatri:

Regarding Mary you wrote:

Really? This doesn’t make sense. Mary stated that she was in need of a savior, and the Bible says there is “no one good -no not one.” Given this, it’s difficult to see that “everyone knew perfectly well that she was sinless.” Mary said:

If you were refering to the ECF yes they held the belief that Mary is sinless.

The Odes of Solomon

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree *. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with—the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle [Paul], if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210]. *

Source: catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

((continue))

 

[Little_Mary]

Sorry - but with all do respect -

So - what you’re really saying is that Catholics gathered all the pages together, bound them up in a neat little cover, and wrote “Holy Bible” on the front…okay, I can accept that.

Glad you were able to talk yourself through it. But you make it sound like such a small thing that this was done. If not for the men who assembled the Bible, who all happened to be Catholic, as was the Pope who ratified the final compilation, you would not have the Bible you have today. THank you for pointing out that the Jews had the Old Testament prior to that, but I was already aware of it. I think of my Catholic faith as a huge, majestic old oak, the roots of which are formed by the Jewish faith, and the trunk and branches my Catholic faith. The OT mirrors the NT in many ways. There is much to learn from that. Your wise Catholic ancestors saw the wisdom in including God’s word in the Old Testament into Ta Biblia. And, yes, there were many writings then, but who decided what would be included in The Holy Bible? The Catholic Church. And for the past 400 some odd years protestants have revered a portion (only 66 books of the total 73 ) of this Catholic document as the word of God. Why? Because it’s the Truth and the Catholic Church teaches the Truth!

Submitted with all DUE (check spelling) respect.
.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is exactly what I’m talking about. There are significant differences between what the Bible (the actual word of God) teaches, and what today’s Catholicism teaches.

All of have sin does not necessary all have sinned. Does it mean that Elijah who was assumed into heaven body and soul sinful? In heaven nothing impure can enter it. How about infants, who don’t know have committed sin in them?

To grasp the Immaculate Conception of Mary, you must look in the Scripture.

In Luke, Archangel Gabriel said unto Mary, “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you.”

phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Mary did called God her savior because it was through God’s power that she was preserved from the stains of original sins and have never commited any actual sin. Mary also said, “My soul magnify my Lord’s.”

The Greek Kecharitomene means “the one who have been saved.”

In the Latin Vulgate, it is worded gratia plenta.

 

[Little_Mary]

mapatri, check out this website.

www.biblechristiansociety.com

You can order the CD’s or download MP3 files.

Start with “One Church”, “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”

I’d be fascinated to hear what you think of them.

Thanks.

 

[mepatri]

Technically speaking the Bible which contain OT and NT as One Book did not exist before the Church. There were Scripture from the OT text written in manuscripts or scrolls.

Respectively, the Bible, which contains the OT and NT is not one book, but a compilation of 66 different books, written by 40 authors, over a period of about 1500 years. The Bible is still not “one book” even today. What’s important is not when the books were consolidated (as you put so much emphasis on), but when the Scriptures were written, the fact that they are demonstratively accurate and divinely inspired, and the fact that they have been miraculously transmitted and preserved to this day. Tradition cannot make even one of these claims.

We still revere the Bible if we didn’t we would not use them in our Liturgy. First Reading, Second Reading, and the Gospel Reading.

Then if I were to ask you to do away with the catechism and follow only the sacred Scriptures, would you? You most likely would not.

So yes the Church exist before the formation of Canon was established. It was not until the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 392 AD, and Council of 396 AD that made list of canons that ought to be in the Bible. In 382, Pope Damascus I decreed 73 OT Books and 27 NT as inspired word of God. These councils were form because they were other Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Acts of Peter, which were contrary to the mainstream Christinaity.

First, there is no “list of canons that ought to be in the Bible” that I’m aware of. A canon is a “measure” or “standard” against which something is measured.Many believe the earliest Christian canon is the Bryennios List dated around 100. It was written in Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It is the Old Testament - 27 books in all.

It is my contention that the early church relied on two sources for truth: the Scruptures, and oral tradition. I believe that as time went on, the oral traditions that could be trusted early on, became corrupt, and not reliable in a short period. Today, it can be shown just how far off track the Catholic Church has strayed from its mooring - the Scriptures.

Jesus (to the best of my knowledge) never spoke of tradition having the same authority or weight He gave Scripture. He referred time and time again to Scripture - not tradition, as the standard. He constantly asked why the Jews (most notably the Pharisees and Sadducees) did not:

~ Read the Scriptures.
~ Know the Scriptures.
~ Remember the Scriptures.
~ Follow the Scriptures.

Show me where Jesus gave such authority to tradition. All I can find is:

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Matt: 15

(notice He says “for the sake of” your tradition. This is interesting to me, since it shows how the importance of keeping traditions, right or wrong, is what many Catholics desparately seek to do.) Is this so with you?

As far as I can tell - tradition is fine, but not at the expense of Scripture. Tradition carried very little if any weight with Jesus. Traditions often militate against the word of God.

God said:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Is 55:11 KJV) (emphasis added)

There is no mention of “tradition” accomplishing anything.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Respectively, the Bible, which contains the OT and NT is not one book, but a compilation of 66 different books, written by 40 authors, over a period of about 1500 years. The Bible is still not “one book” even today. What’s important is not when the books were consolidated (as you put so much emphasis on), but when the Scriptures were written, the fact that they are demonstratively accurate and divinely inspired, and the fact that they have been miraculously transmitted and preserved to this day. Tradition cannot make even one of these claims.

It is a list of 73 OT it was not until 1517 that the Protestant Reformers remove the 7 Books. Prior to the Reformation (before the Reformation, there Christians had 73 OT Books).

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS COUNCIL OF ROME 382 AD:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.

The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

((continue))

 

[Little_Mary]

There is no mention of “tradition” accomplishing anything.

Tradition and what it is meant to accomplish is most certainly spoken of in the Bible.

But, just for argument’s sake, do you believe in the Trinity? That particular word is not in the Bible.

 

[Rocky]

Sacred Tradition is how Scripture is understood.

As Scripture gives us the Light of God’s Wisdom, Sacred Tradition is the lens that let’s us see and know clearly what is revealed in Scripture.

Without Sacred Tradition every person can decide for themselves what the Scripture means, and then you have people who read the bible and do not believe that Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity.

And as to the Catechism, it is a tool to use to know exactly what has been taught for the past 2,000 years. Using this tool, we can see that what is taught now has been taught from the beginning (even if it wasn’t promulgated until there was controversy—such as in the matters of “Trinity” and “Transubstantiation”).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Then if I were to ask you to do away with the catechism and follow only the sacred Scriptures, would you? You most likely would not.

If I follow Scripture and self-intepret it myself it could lead my destruction. I could form a Church like those Westboro Baptist who said, “Thank God for IEDs…”

because base on Sola Scriptura, you are free to interpret the Bible on your own terms.

I rather go with the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church than mere men.

First, there is no “list of canons that ought to be in the Bible” that I’m aware of. A canon is a “measure” or “standard” against which something is measured.Many believe the earliest Christian canon is the Bryennios List dated around 100. It was written in Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It is the Old Testament - 27 books in all.

I just listed them which Pope Damasus decreed. I read Christian history my friend and after apostles taught men whom we called the ECF who apparently had Catholic beliefs.

It is my contention that the early church relied on two sources for truth: the Scruptures, and oral tradition. I believe that as time went on, the oral traditions that could be trusted early on, became corrupt, and not reliable in a short period. Today, it can be shown just how far off track the Catholic Church has strayed from its mooring - the Scriptures.

It relied both Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church.

I don’t think it has. The Catholic Church teaches pornography, euthanasia, prostitution, abortion,masterubation, fornication, adultery, stem cell research, contraception, as sinful, and the Church strongly condemned them.

Moral and Faith issue is part of the deposit of faith which cannot change. Though disciplines may change, the general concept of salvation through Jesus Christ remains.

Jesus (to the best of my knowledge) never spoke of tradition having the same authority or weight He gave Scripture. He referred time and time again to Scripture - not tradition, as the standard. He constantly asked why the Jews (most notably the Pharisees and Sadducees) did not:

~ Read the Scriptures.
~ Know the Scriptures.
~ Remember the Scriptures.
~ Follow the Scriptures.

Show me where Jesus gave such authority to tradition. All I can find is: “You nullify the word of God with your traditions.”

Not so. Jesus nullifed traditions that nulified God. The Catholic kept Traditions that glorify God.

2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.

In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

As far as I can tell - tradition is fine, but not at the expense of Scripture. Tradition carried very little if any weight with Jesus. Traditions often militate against the word of God.

God said:

There is no mention of “tradition” accomplishing anything.

Catholic Church upheld both Tradition and Sacred Scripture. She has not nullified Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, I read the Scripture on my time and I hear it during Mass in the First Reading (OT), Second Reading (Epistles), and Gospel Reading.

 

[mepatri]

mapatri, check out this website.

www.biblechristiansociety.com

You can order the CD’s or download MP3 files.

Start with “One Church”, “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”

I’d be fascinated to hear what you think of them.

Thanks.

---

Little Mary

I checked out the sight. I try to download the Saxon debate - it looks interesting however…

I’ve heard and read debates with John Martignoni. In all fairness, I think he’s a dedicated man, and really believes what he teaches, however, he doesn’t have a good grip on Protestantism, the very thing he speaks out against. Either that, or he hopes his listeners don’t.

He’s not a good debater, because he uses techniques in his debates that are so transparent it hurts his case, and his tactics are designed to obsecure the truth rather than expose it. He is skilled at createing a straw man argument, and then systematically tearing it down - and then raising his hands in victory. Unless you are a skilled critical thinker, you won’t catch his constant reliance on assumptive language, straw man argumentation, and his skill at choosing scriptures that make his case, while avoiding those that don’t.

I once heard a debate (it might be the one on his site) where Martignoni’s opponent could not make his case, because Martignoni kept him on the defensive by unfairly and inaccurately characterizing the Protestant view of salvation under antinomianism. Antinomianism or “anti-lawism” denies or downplays the significance of God’s law in the life of the believer. It’s the opposite of legalism. It is NOT the Protestant view, and the Protestant debater was never allowed to get to the meat of the matter, because Martignoni didn’t want to get there. If they had, Martignoni would have lost the debate.

I’ll take a look at the debate and get back with you. Stay tuned…

 

[mepatri]

If I follow Scripture and self-intepret it myself it could lead my destruction. I could form a Church like those Westboro Baptist who said, “Thank God for IEDs…”

because base on Sola Scriptura, you are free to interpret the Bible on your own terms.

I rather go with the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church than mere men.

I understand it’s your assumption that the teaching of the Catholic Church is infallible. I don’t want to step on your view. You have every right to it, and I respect that. I would, however, disagree with you on what seems to be your view on self-intepretation of scripture. No one advocates that. Christ said He would send the Holy Spirit to help us understand. It sounds like the difference between you and I is that you believe that you need the Pople to first intrepret for you, and then tell you what it says (Scripture), where as I believe that God wrote Scripture for all of us, not just the Pope, and that we all have the ability to discern truth. If you don’t - then how would you protect yourself against possible attacks from the Church? We have seen the ramifications of this way of believing recently with the sex scandles. The trust went so far, without any “self-interpretation”, that many were taken advantage of.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I checked out the sight. I try to download the Saxon debate - it looks interesting however…

I’ve heard and read debates with John Martignoni. In all fairness, I think he’s a dedicated man, and really believes what he teaches, however, he doesn’t have a good grip on Protestantism, the very thing he speaks out against. Either that, or he hopes his listeners don’t.

He’s not a good debater, because he uses techniques in his debates that are so transparent it hurts his case, and his tactics are designed to obsecure the truth rather than expose it. He is skilled at createing a straw man argument, and then systematically tearing it down - and then raising his hands in victory. Unless you are a skilled critical thinker, you won’t catch his constant reliance on assumptive language, straw man
argumentation, and his skill at choosing scriptures that make his case, while avoiding those that don’t.

I once heard a debate (it might be the one on his site) where Martignoni’s opponent could not make his case, because Martignoni kept him on the defensive by unfairly and inaccurately characterizing the Protestant view of salvation under antinomianism. Antinomianism or “anti-lawism” denies or downplays the significance of God’s law in the life of the believer. It’s the opposite of legalism. It is NOT the Protestant view, and the Protestant debater was never allowed to get to the meat of the matter, because Martignoni didn’t want to get there. If they had, Martignoni would have lost the debate.

I’ll take a look at the debate and get back with you. Stay tuned…

You may also want to take a look at Scott Hahn’s writings, John Salza’s scripturecatholic.com and he also have a radio show, Tim Staples, Pat Madrid, Jimmy Akins, Robert Sungenis, Dave Armstrong, Karl Keating founder of Catholic Answers Live.

I also recommend, Alex Jones, as well as David Currie’s conversion stories.

Though I recommend David Currie, Scott Hahn, Alex Jones, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Pat Madrid because they were former Protestants.