We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[greggy53]

… Are catholics blessed by God to understand scripture better because they can trace their church back to St Peter?

AS individuals we are subject to error as anyone. Yet the Church with the guidance of the Holy Ghost interprets scripture without error. Remember the Church has been meditating, and evaluating the scriptures for 2000 years. We can rely on Mother Church to tell me the proper interpretation of a scripture with the assurance of Jesus own words.

 

[Darlene_Jason]

Please let me know where in God’s Word is it stated that the Catholic Church is the only true Church???

 

[Louie1983]

greggy53;5335284:

I will just give one for now, one Eusebius from third century and fourth century as he writes of the historical tradition passed down in the church:

Eusebius (c260-c340), bishop of Caesarea, was also known as the Father of Church History. His book History of the Church is one of the major sources of the history of early Christianity. Eusebius had access to many early documents no longer extant today. Thus his magnum opus is a valuable resource for historians interested in early Christianity.
Let us begin by looking at Eusebius’ citations for James’ ascension to the leadership of the Jerusalem Church:

History of the Church 2:1:2
Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord…
History of the Church 3:5:2
…James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour…

History of the Church 2:23:4
[Quoting Hegesippus (c110-180)] “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.”

History of the Church 2:23:1
…James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles…

History of the Church 7:19
The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now…

History of the Church 2:1:3-4
(2:1:3) But Clement [c160-215] in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”
(2:1:4) But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.”[15]

I’ve explained this before, just because certain scholars disgree with certain aspects of the faith such as the above it doesn’t mean that it was accepted by the church, that’s why there was a magisterium and that’s why apostolic succession took place, to differentiate between right and wrong.

I provided you with several quotes from early church fathers, some who were taught by the disciples themselves and they agreed with the primacy of peter. Yet you provide no response to them?

Your quotes refer numerous times to the church of jerusalem, does being the bishop of jerusalem mean your bishop of the entire church? no! It was PETER who christ gave the authority to, It was PETER to which Jesus said “i will build my church on”, it was peter who made doctrinal decisions - For example If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter “rose” and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says “all kept silent.” When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter’s definitive teaching.

God bless.

 

[Louie1983]

Please let me know where in God’s Word is it stated that the Catholic Church is the only true Church???

Please read over the threads, there have been plenty of examples of this given.

 

[greggy53]

motstraumen;5336764:

I’ve explained this before, just because certain scholars disgree with certain aspects of the faith such as the above it doesn’t mean that it was accepted by the church, that’s why there was a magisterium and that’s why apostolic succession took place, to differentiate between right and wrong.

I provided you with several quotes from early church fathers, some who were taught by the disciples themselves and they agreed with the primacy of peter. Yet you provide no response to them?

Your quotes refer numerous times to the church of jerusalem, does being the bishop of jerusalem mean your bishop of the entire church? no! It was PETER who christ gave the authority to, It was PETER to which Jesus said “i will build my church on”, it was peter who made doctrinal decisions - For example If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter “rose” and declared that circumcision was not necessary. James was not even in the picture at this point. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says “all kept silent.” When you read the Greek phrase, it is in the aorist tense, which means the silence was the effect of Peter’s definitive teaching.

God bless.

Somethings getting messed up here I didn’t write that stuff

 

[rinnie]

I do understand about the various rites and the implications for today, but in the time of Luther the situation they were dealing with was the Roman Rite, if you will. I am not sure if any person that isn’t brought up in the other rite would have the opportunity to chose which right he became a priest in. I also understand call or vocation and am equally aware of the great mystery that is the grace revealed in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and how he works through his people, all of us who hold to the universal faith that God alone gives.

That is a very good point. And you are correct we were dealing with the Roman Rite. Thats something to think about right there. But the point with Luther was this, Luther Did indeed take out the Books. Do you agree with that? ANd if you do, answer me this, Who gave him that right to do that?

Because in the bible it say’s noone has the right to remove or add to the bible correct? Now if you agree and acknowledge the Roman Rite that is proof that the books were not added after Luther they were taken out. So you see what I am saying?

 

[rinnie]

Also if I may add. Luther was a Roman Priest. He took that rite knowing very well what that rite consisted of. He made a promise to God to not marry and have the Church as his bride and obey the Church. He broke that promise to God, then he turned around and took books out of the bible and disobeyed God again. Then he turned around and told people that the Teachers of the Church do not understand scripture the way he did. So he took out the books and took it upon himself to be self-proclaimed and made his own church. Now if I am wrong please correct me. To me that is 3 strikes right off the bat that I cannot accept.

Now here is my thinking. Which you will see I was accused of having a problem with understanding things. But here is my point. Jesus said to the Apostles the Church will prevail. Now I cannot believe that Jesus would tell luther to do what he did. It either came from God or the devil do you agree? Now if God promised us the Church would prevail, why would he send luther to take us away from it?

 

[JonNC]

That is a very good point. And you are correct we were dealing with the Roman Rite. Thats something to think about right there. But the point with Luther was this, Luther Did indeed take out the Books. Do you agree with that? ANd if you do, answer me this, Who gave him that right to do that?

Because in the bible it say’s noone has the right to remove or add to the bible correct? Now if you agree and acknowledge the Roman Rite that is proof that the books were not added after Luther they were taken out. So you see what I am saying?

Not answering for my Lutheran brother, but for me. No, he did not take out the books. In the thread "Power and Authority, Gabriel of 12 and I had a dialogue about this. Here is his initial
post and my reply.

---

Quote:
=Gabriel of 12;5330559]

For clarification here; Catholics do not call the “Deuterocanonical” books “Apocrypha”. Which include the books of Tobit, Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Sirach. These 7 books, which Protestants call “Apocrypha” were removed from the bible by Protestants not Catholics. These books have been included in the Catholic official canon of the bible since the fourth century. Although Catholic scholars have debated them over the centuries, never the less, the Catholic Church kept them in the bible, because Jesus and the Apostles taught from these books.

JonNC : Boy, am I happy you posted this. This is exactly what Luther was doing! As many scholars and theologians of his time, including Cardinal Cajetan who also questioned their canonicity, Luther was participating in this debate regarding the dc books, which was allowed and encouraged by the Church.

Quote: Gabriel of 12
**The Council of Trent only closed the centuries debate **of these “Deuterocanonical” books, and anyone who rejects them from the Council of Trent on… will excommunicate themselves from the Catholic Church. Trent did not canonize any bible books, Trent only closed the argument over these books once and for all, that they remain in the bible. So in a nutshell, the Catholic Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit got it right the first time. It was the Protestants who removed books and added to the bible.

JonNC : And Trent happened after Luther’s translation, after his death. What is more, Luther did include the dc precisely because it was considered part the Bible for centuries. But they had also been in dispute for centuries, so even though he had already been excommunicated and not abliged to obey Rome, he still included them in an appendix. This was all prior to Trent. Luther did not violate Trent because he was dead by then. He did not “rip” the dc out of the Bible! I do not believe Luther would approve of a Bible without the dc books.

Catholics can criticize what Protestants (sadly even Lutherans) did in removing the dc’s in later centuries, but Luther acted in a way acceptable and consistent with Church practice of his time until his excommunication, did not remove the books in his translation even after his excommunication, and did not violate Trent.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Not answering for my Lutheran brother, but for me. No, he did not take out the books. In the thread "Power and Authority, Gabriel of 12 and I had a dialogue about this. Here is his initial
post and my reply.

---

JonNC : Boy, am I happy you posted this. This is exactly what Luther was doing! As many scholars and theologians of his time, including Cardinal Cajetan who also questioned their canonicity, Luther was participating in this debate regarding the dc books, which was allowed and encouraged by the Church.

JonNC : And Trent happened after Luther’s translation, after his death. What is more, Luther did include the dc precisely because it was considered part the Bible for centuries. But they had also been in dispute for centuries, so even though he had already been excommunicated and not abliged to obey Rome, he still included them in an appendix. This was all prior to Trent. Luther did not violate Trent because he was dead by then. He did not “rip” the dc out of the Bible! I do not believe Luther would approve of a Bible without the dc books.

Catholics can criticize what Protestants (sadly even Lutherans) did in removing the dc’s in later centuries, but Luther acted in a way acceptable and consistent with Church practice of his time until his excommunication, did not remove the books in his translation even after his excommunication, and did not violate Trent.

Jon

I will find some more concrete infor about what you are saying. BUt give me some time. Okay now. Let me ask you this. This is a point I can drive home and do it fast. Was Luther a roman priest, did he take that rite, and did he walk awy from that promise as a Roman Priest. Now being excommunicated means he was thrown out of the Church correct? And when anyone is excommunicated means they will not obey and abide by the rules of the Church correct. Now if someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church does that not nean that they have no authority, and we are to not obey their teachings? And is that not also correct today?

 

[rinnie]

Luther removed them and placed them in an appendix during the reformation, They remained in the appendix of protestant bibles until about 1826 and then they were removed all together.

So sorry he did remove them. What does placing them in appendix mean to you?

 

[JonNC]

Luther removed them and placed them in an appendix during the reformation, They remained in the appendix of protestant bibles until about 1826 and then they were removed all together.

So sorry he did remove them. What does placing them in appendix mean to you?

I have a copy of Luther’s German Bible (not an original, of course ), The OT books (less the dc) are listed first, followed by the dc, then the NT. This was after he was excommunicated, of course. The dc were included, and are to this day, in Luther’s translation. Did Luther question their canonicity? Yes. And since Trent hadn’t happened, he had every right as a Catholic to do so. One cannot deny Luther the rights practiced by all other Catholics before Trent.

Was Luther a roman priest, did he take that rite, and did he walk awy from that promise as a Roman Priest.

He was pushed away.

Now being excommunicated means he was thrown out of the Church correct?

I thought it meant cut off from the sacraments, primarily, but I might be wrong. So, ok.

And when anyone is excommunicated means they will not obey and abide by the rules of the Church correct. Now if someone is excommunicated from the Catholic Church does that not nean that they have no authority, and we are to not obey their teachings? And is that not also correct today?

We who? We me, or we you? It is curious that many of the things (certainly not all) that Luther was excommunicated for were eventually confirmed by Trent. Had Trent happened during Luther’s life, or had the Lutherans had safe access to Trent, perhaps the Reformation would have died out then. We’ll never know.

Jon

 

[greggy53]

Luther removed them and placed them in an appendix during the reformation, They remained in the appendix of protestant bibles until about 1826 and then they were removed all together.

So sorry he did remove them. What does placing them in appendix mean to you?

I have a family bible that was my great grandfathers and was printed in 1876 and it has what the protestants call the apocrypha in it. (King James version too)

 

[JonNC]

I have a family bible that was my great grandfathers and was printed in 1876 and it has what the protestants call the apocrypha in it. (King James version too)

Thanks.
Exactly, and that is 8 years short of 300 years after Luther’s translation was finished - 1534.
The complete removal of the dc is something that has happened in the last 150-200 years. That American Lutherans got caught up in this is unfortunate.

BTW, how are the dc books placed in your great grandfather’s Bible? As I said before, the German Bible I have is OT, dc, NT.

Thanks again,
Jon

 

[distracted]

Louie1983;5333608:

Yet he didn’t stay in that position for long. Many scholars agree that he fell out with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, probably because he ate with Gentiles. He lost his see and was sent out from there. He had to defer to James in doctrinal questions. First among equals is one thing, and would be quite acceptable, but first period is not. Are you denying the Holy Spirit at act in the early church when James became the unquestioned leader of the fledgling group? I mess up no historical fact. I look at them objectively.

Jesus would not give the earthly headship of the Church to someone who would fail in any BIG way…

and Jesus started ONE Church… promised to protect it from the very gates of Hell…

He doesn’t go back on his promises… He is capable of keeping Peter and whomever 'in line"

Jesus didn’t make a mistake in making Peter head of the Church on Earth… Jesus doesn’t make such mistakes. He is God.

 

[distracted]

Fair enough, and I think a lot of us Lutherans do that ourselves. The arguments set forth as this goes to prove the followers of Luther are all “mistaken” (code I believe) and that the Roman Church has never (big word) been wrong is not productive, .

the Roman Catholic Church has never been wrong on dogmas/doctrines defined ex cathedra…

technically, (these are my words, not the Church’s) the Church hasn’t been “wrong” on anything Period…

just the people IN the Church have been wrong… sometimes terribly wrong… terribly sinful…

but Jesus said that the way to etnernal life was narrow and there are few who find it… few who are 'strong enough" to get into Heaven… scary words…

 

[distracted]

Please let me know where in God’s Word is it stated that the Catholic Church is the only true Church???

God’s Word is found in the Bible but not only There.

do you think that all God’s Word could be contained in a relatively small book?

The Bible itself says that if evertything Jesus said and did were written down, all the books in the world could not hold it all…

Jesus never wrote anything (that anyone knows of)… He never said (again, that anyone knows of) to anyone to write a Bible…

He did establish a Church… an infallible (of course)
Church that could be/ can be trusted to always and forever t each truth… absolute, unerring truth…

it had to be that way because we humans cannot find absolute, objective, pure truth (God’s truth) without such intervention…

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

God’s Word is found in the Bible but not only There.

do you think that all God’s Word could be contained in a relatively small book?

The Bible itself says that if evertything Jesus said and did were written down, all the books in the world could not hold it all…

Jesus never wrote anything (that anyone knows of)… He never said (again, that anyone knows of) to anyone to write a Bible…

He did establish a Church… an infallible (of course)
Church that could be/ can be trusted to always and forever t each truth… absolute, unerring truth…

it had to be that way because we humans cannot find absolute, objective, pure truth (God’s truth) without such intervention…

An Amen to that!

 

[greggy53]

Thanks.
Exactly, and that is 8 years short of 300 years after Luther’s translation was finished - 1534.
The complete removal of the dc is something that has happened in the last 150-200 years. That American Lutherans got caught up in this is unfortunate.

BTW, how are the dc books placed in your great grandfather’s Bible? As I said before, the German Bible I have is OT, dc, NT.

Thanks again,
Jon

They are separated in a place of the their own. Many protestants I’ve talked to have a hard time believing me when I tell them that. They act incredulous when I tell them that the Catholics decided what was to be included in the scriptures back in the 4th century! They must think the bible fell out of the sky and hit Martin Luther on the head or something.

 

[rinnie]

I have a copy of Luther’s German Bible (not an original, of course ), The OT books (less the dc) are listed first, followed by the dc, then the NT. This was after he was excommunicated, of course. The dc were included, and are to this day, in Luther’s translation. Did Luther question their canonicity? Yes. And since Trent hadn’t happened, he had every right as a Catholic to do so. One cannot deny Luther the rights practiced by all other Catholics before Trent.

He was pushed away.

I thought it meant cut off from the sacraments, primarily, but I might be wrong. So, ok.

We who? We me, or we you? It is curious that many of the things (certainly not all) that Luther was excommunicated for were eventually confirmed by Trent. Had Trent happened during Luther’s life, or had the Lutherans had safe access to Trent, perhaps the Reformation would have died out then. We’ll never know.

Jon

But here is something you need to remember. The very first council was a synod. Which was a local council in rome.

Now the courncil of Carthage and Hippo RE-AFFIRMED the findings of synoid around 393-396.

St Jerome being the most famous disagreement. Now you have to remember before trent is was universally accepted. Thats when the Tent was declared its binding.

But the point is it was universally accepted so it did not have to be considered binding. Noone felt they had any reason to bind it. But the teaching is still the same. Its just now considered binding. But personally for me, it would not matter. I would not need it to be considered officially binding. If it was the teaching of the church, and I believed that my Church had apostolic teachings I would not even consider to question it. BUt you have to remember the re-formation was why it was needed.

 

[rinnie]

And you are correct to be excommunicated is to be cut off of the sacraments. And he had the sacrament of Holy Orders to preserve and go by the teachings of the Church. He didn’t do that. He tried to change the teaching’s. And we are still there today. We have what he felt and what the Church taught. The Church was still the authority and had the authority, and as A Catholic I feel it still does and always will. God promised me that.

Just like as a Catholic today, if I am in grave sin, I cannot receive the sacrament of Communion. I must go and confess my sins to a priest and get absolution. Now I understand that other Church’s disagree with that. But that’s what it has been from the start and will always be. I may not like it, or even agree with it all the time. But guess what, its not up for me to like or agree with. Its for me to obey. It is considered binding as it was before trent, and after trent. BUt that is just to me. Officially it was considered binding after trent. See what I mean.