A
Allan1972
Guest
Because, I don’t know anything about him. I don’t need to know about it. The Bible is enough.
- Status
A
Allan1972
Guest
How is that unbiblical. show the scripture?
W
water
Guest
It isn’t odd to ask this question. If it is not there, it is not there.
I thought you would show us where the Bible say if we read the bible, we’re saved!
L
lak611
Guest
So you think a person can be saved just by reading the Gospels, even if he does not understand or believe them?
W
water
Guest
We should first give Allen a chance where in the Bible it says we will be saved for reading the Bible.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
He was the first companions (Christian brother) of the Apostle John. He is the first Bishop to call Jesus Christ’s Church Catholic. "“Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2).
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Pauls letters where collected in the first century and Matt Mark and Luke were brought together by around 150ad.
.Hold it…As you can see that is not what you just said.
You pointed to the fact that Polycarp and Ignatius supposedly support what you believe and yet I just showed you in one of Ignatius’ letters that he would have considered you someone to avoid because you do not share his beliefs.
You assert that the Bible is enough and yet you use Bible commentaries and have asserted beliefs here that are not held by believers today nor were they held by Polycarp & Ignatius in the early church. The Bible itself does not teach that it was ever meant to be the sole authority and in fact states that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church.
Since both Polycarp and Ignatius were close friends and disciples of St. John and paid for their faith with their own blood and suffering, I’d say they have more credibility than you do or any n-C preacher who claims to be led by the Holy Spirit and yet denies or denounces the teachings of the Catholic Church.
To deny Sacred Tradition is almost ludicrous on the part of so many n-Cs who say they are Bible only Christians and yet they are defacto Bible + their pastor’s messages, and/or the commentary in their favorite Bible, some website, some Bible study, or any of a host of other sources.
Admit it guys, you didn’t come to your conclusions opposing the Catholic Church all by yourself with a Bible in hand…you got most all of that from someone else.
Pax tecum,
A
Allan1972
Guest
this is saying that the papacy led **military **campaigns
this is saying that the Catholics were putting people to death by burning at the sake. does that sound like something christians do? that’s like what they did to Jesus.
source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That is ludicrous, since few people could read or had much access to books until about 1447 when the printing press was invented.
According to your fallacious thinking then anyone who cannot read the Word of God for themselves cannot be saved.
That means that most of the believers for the first 1447 years of Christianity could not have been saved because they could not read the Bible for themselves, and by that same logic a great many people around our modern world are doomed as well because they can’t read their own language, much less the era English of your precious King James Version.
That’s nuts!:whacky:
C
Church_Militant
Guest
He can’t, because it doesn’t.We should first give Allen a chance where in the Bible it says we will be saved for reading the Bible.
He says he doesn’t trust the historical Christians like Ignatius and Polycarp, but he’ll believe some anti-Catholic agenda driven revision of history that he finds on Wikipedia of all places (which is about as reliably accurate as writing on a bathroom stall).
I don’t think this guy knows which end is up…
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
So you were saying that is is wrong for the Catholic Church to defend Eastern Christians from the Muslims invaders? The call was there because the need to defend our fellow Christians? Whose side are you own, the Muslims, or the Christians?
The Protestants likewise killed Catholics in their countries. Ever heard of the Thirty Years War?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_years_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
G
Godfollower
Guest
Allan,
Welcome to the forum! I’ve only just joined myself, though I’ve been quietly reading the posts for a while. I thought you might want to check out this quotation from the Bible:
2 Thes. 2:15 (Douay-Rheims).
Your Bible says much the same thing:
2 Thes. 2:15 (KJV).
So, according to the Bible, we are required to hold on to the traditions we learned by word of mouth. In other words, the Bible is not the only source of knowledge with respect to the Christian faith. To put it another way, the Bible is not enough.
And this isn’t merely an isolated text.
2 Pet. 1:20 (KJV).
In other words, according to the Bible, we are not supposed to rely on private interpretations of the Bible.
And again:
2 Pet. 3:14-18 (KJV) (emphasis added).
So, again, according to the Bible, parts of the Bible are hard to understand and are easily capable of being misunderstood – and those who are not learned in the Bible risk their own destruction (keep in mind that, in this passage, Peter was warning Christians that they could risk falling away from the Lord through improper interpretation of the Scriptures).
In short: as a Christian, you cannot simply sit down, read the Bible, and assume you know God’s will. You are required to pay attention to the oral traditions passed on from Christ’s Apostles, and you are required to listen to the authoritative interpretation of the Bible from Christ’s Apostles. And, if you do the historical research, you’ll see that that is exactly what the Catholic Church preserved for all these centuries.
I hope you find these citations helpful.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Allan,
Something you left out.
The first heretic to be executed was Priscillian of Avila. Having been condemned for heresy by a synod, he appealed to the Emperor Maximus; the latter, however, had Priscillian and six of his followers beheaded at Treves in 385. This act was approved by a synod which met at Treves in the same year, though the most prominent bishops of that time, Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours and Pope Siricius protested against Priscillian’s execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution.
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that “various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons … In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome.”[1] Though the death penalty was seldom executed during the Early Middle Ages, these laws nonetheless later served as the basis of the prosecution of heretics, especially after Emperor Frederick II had confirmed these rulings.
Note; the state have the power to execute not the Catholic Church.
In that time, Church Councils (composed of bishops and archbishops) used local authorities to prosecute heretics.
Later in the thirteenth century (Papal inquisition), the pope assigned the Dominican Order for the duty of inquisitors. Since then Inquisitors were few (always less than 10), acting by the name of the Pope with full authority. They judged heresy alone, using local authorities to put a tribunal and prosecute heretics. Since the end of the fifteenth century(Spanish Inquisition) they were ruled by a Grand Inquisitor. Inquisitors persisted through time until the nineteenth century.
The rest of the information can be found on:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
Like I said, the state killed heretics, not the Church. The Church did form tribunals to trial heretics for their crimes, it was the state who had the hand of death, not the Church.
If you want to accuse the Church of anything like actually killing heretics prove it with real facts. Not false information. that.
Something you left out.
The first heretic to be executed was Priscillian of Avila. Having been condemned for heresy by a synod, he appealed to the Emperor Maximus; the latter, however, had Priscillian and six of his followers beheaded at Treves in 385. This act was approved by a synod which met at Treves in the same year, though the most prominent bishops of that time, Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours and Pope Siricius protested against Priscillian’s execution, largely on the jurisdictional grounds that an ecclesiastical case should not be decided by a civil tribunal, and worked to reduce the persecution.
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that “various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons … In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome.”[1] Though the death penalty was seldom executed during the Early Middle Ages, these laws nonetheless later served as the basis of the prosecution of heretics, especially after Emperor Frederick II had confirmed these rulings.
Note; the state have the power to execute not the Catholic Church.
In that time, Church Councils (composed of bishops and archbishops) used local authorities to prosecute heretics.
Later in the thirteenth century (Papal inquisition), the pope assigned the Dominican Order for the duty of inquisitors. Since then Inquisitors were few (always less than 10), acting by the name of the Pope with full authority. They judged heresy alone, using local authorities to put a tribunal and prosecute heretics. Since the end of the fifteenth century(Spanish Inquisition) they were ruled by a Grand Inquisitor. Inquisitors persisted through time until the nineteenth century.
The rest of the information can be found on:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
Like I said, the state killed heretics, not the Church. The Church did form tribunals to trial heretics for their crimes, it was the state who had the hand of death, not the Church.
If you want to accuse the Church of anything like actually killing heretics prove it with real facts. Not false information. that.
A
Allan1972
Guest
If you read the gospels you’ll notice that is exactly what happened with Jesus. The priest and scribes, pharisees, handed Jesus over to the Romans to have him crucified, but it didn’t make them any less guilty.
L
lak611
Guest
And what does that have to do with the Catholic Church?
N
Nicene
Guest
The bible tells us of bishops installed by the apostles, and the manner in which it is done (Timothy, Acts, Thessalonians etc). Ignatius was a disciple of John the apostle, bishop of Ephesus, appointed by Peter.
Remember Clement in the bible? 3rd Pope of Rome.
Sinse you care so much for the bible, you may want to read up and learn about the importance they placed on this succession (Timothy) They certainly thought the church was more important than scripture, mainly because they know the church is the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ (Ephesians)
1 Tim 3:15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Eph 2:20: built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Do you disagree with sacred scripture?
I’m still waiting for you to produce scripture where you are saved through reading the bible, and not by the above. The bible is fairly crystal clear about the body and bride of Christ.
Do you not believe sacred scripture when it says this? Seems like someone has been feeding you a lie. Remeber from whence all lies originate.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
So when protestants outright slaughtered catholics (you know it is still illegal, but not enforced, to be catholic in protestant england?) it was ok right? Oh wait, thats right they handed us over to the state. Our favorite rest stop was the tower of london (pretty decorations you guys had and invented)
I’m from colorado, in the 1800’s catholics and indians were massacered statewide by guess whom? It begins with a P.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The Church and State at the time were very powerful at the time, and back then the Catholic Church had some secular power. That power has weaken since then.
You still have not answer my question about the Crusades. You said Pope Urban called to arms to for a Crusade to fight the Muslims since the Eastern Emperor of Constantinople requested for his help. I asked you, who do you side, the Eastern Christians, or the Muslim invaders?
I also like to note that the heretics of the Church were not perfect compared to Jesus. I, myself do not agree with the Inquisition but I felt it was necessary at the time because it call for it. I do think that some of the innocent may have been falsely accused, but that is human nature.
The Protestants themselves killed Catholics and the Catholics likewise killed Protestants during the 30 Years War.
During the Colonial Times, the Protestant Christians also had their own form of inquisition. The Salem Witch killed a a lot of witches… some were even falsely accused.
In any rate, the evil that men cannot be blame on a certain groups or religions. The cause of these problems is the stains of original sin that Adam and Eve that pass down through generations.
During those times however, the Catholic Church was preserved from announcing any heretical doctrine that negates God himself. Thank God for the Holy Spirit for preserving the Catholic Church.
It’s over 2,000 yrs now, and the Catholic Church is still here like it was founded on Pentecost Sunday, the Birth of Jesus Christ’s Church.
N
Nicene
Guest
Just out of curiosity Allan, sinse you are against church and state being in bed together, what do you think of all those Evangelical advisors to Bush (33 if I remember correctly) influencing U.S. policy, in particular foreign policy?
Don’t you find that slightly hypocritical? Or didn’t your new church tell you about them?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Don’t you find that slightly hypocritical? Or didn’t your new church tell you about them?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
P
ProdigalSonOfOz
Guest
My friend you are the one who made the assertion that the Bible is sufficient for salvation, the onus is upon you to prove that it is.
Perhaps the reason you did not support your view with scriptural proofs is because you know very well that “sola scriptura” is 100% unbiblical.
There is not one, not even one, passage of scripture that suggests that the bible is all we need for salvation. You are basing your beliefs on a man made tradition, and we all know what Christ had to say about those.
- Status