Where is Catholicism in the Bible?

[Tantum_ergo]

External changes are not the same as internal changes. External changes–war, industrial revolutions, explorations, technology–do not ‘change’ a religion’s teachings or dogma/doctrine, but rather its external practices (a non literate society did not have weekly Bible studies or people reading daily Scripture; a literate society with cheap available Bibles does–but the Bible itself does not ‘change’). Internal changes would involve changing the concept of the Trinity to the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four. Internal change means that what was ‘once taught as X’ is now taught as “non-X”–a 180 degree change. Internal ‘development’, OTOH, means that what was taught of as X remains X, but X itself is better understood, and that understanding cannot ‘contradict’ X. A good example here is the Trinity. The earliest Christians understood “the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” though they may not have thoroughly grasped that these were three divine persons in One God, nor that the Father-Son-and Spirit are equal. However, an ‘early’ Christian who somehow was brought into this time period and given the explanation would not think that the explanation contradicted his own earlier understanding. They would not think, “but that’s wrong–the Father, Son and Spirit are not three-in-one, and they aren’t equal”. Rather, they would think, “yes, when Paul and Peter were speaking, and we heard of the words and teachings of Jesus, and we listened to the scribes reading, those passages about “You are My Son” and the Genesis readings, and the Baptism etc. . .yes, this “trinity” you speak of is what was meant. That’s what they were telling us.”

As for the idea of the Catholic Church changing, Catholics, for example, still believe in the Real Presence (as do the Orthodox whom you have just mentioned)–something which was believed by all Christians until approximately AD 1519 (Luther varies slightly by positing ‘consubstantiation’; other groups through this century and to now substitute a ‘symbolic’ Eucharist).

2000 years of one distinct teaching versus 500 years of a ‘180 degree change’ in teaching. . .so you tell me, which group ‘changed’ Christian teaching–the one which still teaches the original Christian teaching from Scripture and Sacred Tradition, or the one that claims that ‘original’ teaching was wrong?

 

[Montie_Claunch]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

here is the link that was given to me by another person from this forum. they were concerned about me using a biased source. some of you are too angry to trying to be discussing christianity. Christians are peaceful.

I love peace. I love talking about God. You want to talk with me about God? It will be fun. I have been reading and studying. Like where the Papacy is in the bible; and also the Eucharistic real precense; and purgatory. Pleaasssseee. I always wanted to share the scripture I have found on these issues. No Non-Catholic has ever let me share what the bible says about theses wonderful things before. Come on what do you say? I’ll even keep it KJV for you if you like.

bye Allen. Talk to you later.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Allan:

I don’t side with either the eastern Christians or the Muslims. I don’t doubt that the Catholic Church is still here. The question is whether the church has been exactly the same since it began. For example,

The Catholic Church teachings on moral and faith remain unchanged, which we Catholics called the deposit of faith.

Disciples of the Church does changes such as liturgy style and languages…etc…

The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. Jesus ordered them to teach the nations “everything I have commanded you” and assured them “know that I am with you always, until the end of the world.” (Mt 28:18-20). The metaphor of a “deposit” suggests that this teaching is an inexhaustible treasure, that rewards reflection and study with new insights and deeper penetration into the mystery of the divine economy of salvation [God’s plan for saving mankind]. Although the Church’s understanding of this teaching can and does develop, it can never be augmented in substance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes:

“The apostles entrusted the sacred deposit of the faith [the depositum fidei; see 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. ‘By adhering to (this heritage) the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread [the Eucharist] and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.’”

So since you did not take side, you would not support your fellow Christian man who is attacked by the Muslims, who defiled the Holy City of Jerusalem?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Deposit of Fath by catholicfaithandreason.com:

Deposit of Faith = Sacred Oral Tradition + Sacred Scriptures

Oral Tradition–Jesus commissioned the Apostles to “go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you” (Mt.28: 19-20). He promised that the Holy Spirit would “instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I have told you” (John 14:26). Just before his ascension into heaven Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk16:15). He commanded them to do precisely what He himself had done, namely, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice and granted them, through the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues. He told them, “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

It was by this oral Apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which books should be included in the New Testament.  Many were already in use in the house churches (Christianity was "underground" for three centuries and much persecuted)  St. Augustine endorses the same position when he says: "I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church" (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6).  As St. Paul urged in his epistle, 2 Thessalonians 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."

Sacred Scripture/the Bible–The Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments. The Church and the faith existed before the New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus died between 30-33 A.D., but none of the Books were written before about 45-50 A.D. and only 3 or 4 of the twelve Apostles were among the human writers. In the mean time many thousands or even millions were converted before the Bible canon (73 books) was agreed upon. The New Testament was created by the Church, not the reverse as is sometimes maintained. The 27 books that would go into the New Testament, the canon, were not decided upon until the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. met under the authority of Pope Damasus I and this was reaffirmed at subsequent Councils at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 A.D. (this latter is the one accepted by many Protestants). Many other books were in use by the Church from the Gospels of Peter and Thomas to the letters of Barnabas and Clement, but these were not determined to be a part of inspired Scripture. It could be argued that it is not logical for Protestants to accept the New Testament and yet reject the authority of the Catholic Church which provided it. It is also important to note that most people could not read in ancient times and only wealthy families could afford to purchase the papyrus on which books were written. In fact, only in the 20th century have most people around the globe become literate. The concept of the “'Bible alone” is therefore, neither practical, historical or Biblical since no verses in the Bible state that this is the case. This is rather a doctrine that took hold in some Protestant denominations during the Reformation.

 The Bible is the inerrant word of God, but it is not a systematic presentation of all that was in the Deposit of Faith. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity, especially the understanding of how Christ united His divinity and humanity and who the Holy Spirit is were the subject of controversies and heresies necessitating the calling of Church Councils during the first 400 years of Church history (such as the Council of Jerusalem discussed in Acts 15 and the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D..)  Why would God give the Church the Holy Spirit to inspire the writing of the New Testament, but not be give the same Holy Spirit to the Church for its interpretation in an infallible way?  It was necessary that this be done because the Scriptures are not explicit in answering all theological and moral questions that arise.  Scholars who have studied the Bible with zeal for 50 years or more often cannot agree on the basics, such as the meaning of baptism, how we are saved or what Jesus meant when He said, "This is my body."  Jesus did not leave His Church without the means to understand the Scriptures.  He promised in John 14: 26, "The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I have told you."  As St. Paul testifies in 1 Timothy 3: 15, the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth."  Jesus told Simon that, "you are Peter [when God gives someone a new name it comes with the grace to do His will] and on this rock I will build my Church and the powers of death [gates of hell] will not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18).

 

[Allan1972]

I don’t know…

I was leaning that way also, but Allan’s first post just stuck with me:

It’s my understanding that “Oneness Pentecostals” have Bishops.
Source: apostolicassembly.org/bishops.aspx

In my opinion, I’m 99% certain (based on Allan’s posting) that Allan rejects the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. That’s the only thing I’m relatively certain on.

There is nothing more I can add or say. The only way to find out what Allan believes is for Allan to say. Hopefully, Allan will come back and share with us. This is all just assumptions and opinions until Allan shares with us.

Personally I’m hoping that Allan will share, it easier talking to someone when you know at least where he or she stands. (In my opinion of course)

I believe in the Father Son Holy Spirit

 

[lak611]

here it is as these scriptures show, The word is god and was made flesh(Jesus) and as he says, he is the only way to the father, or salvation or heaven.

But where do those verses mention the Bible? You have not answered the question.

 

[Allan1972]

Come on Allen lets go do what Jesus and his word tells us to do and join the Catholic Church. Arn’t you excited about this, we’re going to do what Jesus and the bible tells us to do? I know thats what you want to do.

montie, I can sense sarcasm in your tone. Christians don’t use it because it represents arrogance. Christians are not proud and they don’t try to anger people.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

montie, I can sense sarcasm in your tone. Christians don’t use it because it represents arrogance. Christians are not proud and they don’t try to anger people.

No, I am not trying to be arrogant. I really do want to talk. Christians like to share their faith with people. I want to share my faith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

montie, I can sense sarcasm in your tone. Christians don’t use it because it represents arrogance. Christians are not proud and they don’t try to anger people.

Does your attack against the Catholic Church in this forum is also out of arrogance? Indeed, Christians are not proud people. They must imitate Christ with good Christian charity.

 

[lak611]

here it is as these scriptures show, The word is god and was made flesh(Jesus) and as he says, he is the only way to the father, or salvation or heaven.

You were asked to give verses that prove Sola Scriptura. These verses do not. We’re still waiting.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Christians TRY to be patient, and charitable, but sometimes we fail. . .not because they aren’t Christian, but because they’re not perfect, only striving in the way. And when we fail, we are sorry, we ask God’s forgiveness, we make restitution for our sins, and we keep on trying again to be patient, charitable, etc. Remember what Peter says, “Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother–seven times?” And that Christ replies, “Not seven, but seventy times seven.” Along with our call to Christian patience and charity, we are also called to forgiveness.

 

[Mannyfit75]

John 1:1-14;

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.
He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I believe in the Father Son Holy Spirit

Does that mean you believe Jesus IS God?

 

[Allan1972]

I gave him that link but he failed to look at the more detail account like the Inquisition, which I clearly stated that the state government killed criminals and heretics. Back then Church Law and State Law were equal, punishable by death in certain cases.

I’m pretty sure, Allan took note on what he missed.

If you read the link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Great_Schism

You’ll notice that it says that the “papacy sanctioned the inquisition” that means they gave there approval of it, which makes them just as guilty, and I already mentioned that on another post but you didn’t read it.

 

[Allan1972]

well that is not the best source to go to …IMHO
you can do better than wikipedia I am sure

Well, if you don’t like the source, then don’t suggest it. I didn’t find it on my own. someone else on this forum gave it to me.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you read the link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Great_Schism

You’ll notice that it says that the “papacy sanctioned the inquisition” that means they gave there approval of it, which makes them just as guilty, and I already mentioned that on another post but you didn’t read it.

Yes he did, and I also mention in the other thread about this subject that quote which you have stated. Allan, did you really read my thread or did you skim it?

 

[Karin]

Well, if you don’t like the source, then don’t suggest it. I didn’t find it on my own. someone else on this forum gave it to me.

Well Alan…I did not suggest it

 

[Allan1972]

Allan this is not what I was talking about.
I went to the link above but it did not have the info I was looking for.

I wanted to know where you got this quote from:

You use this quote in post 221. This link will take you straight to post 221 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1825062&postcount=221

What is the source on this quote?
What is the source for the quote used in post 221?
Thanks!

here is where i found that info

answeringcatholicism.com/catholicismexposed/historyofthepopedom/historyofthepopedom.html#000001950112c0e05

 

[lak611]

If you read the link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church#Great_Schism

You’ll notice that it says that the “papacy sanctioned the inquisition” that means they gave there approval of it, which makes them just as guilty, and I already mentioned that on another post but you didn’t read it.

Protestants also persecuted Catholics and even some fellow Protestants whose beliefs differed from their own. Check out this article: expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=13568

 

[Karin]

here is where i found that info

answeringcatholicism.com/catholicismexposed/historyofthepopedom/historyofthepopedom.html#000001950112c0e05

I am sorry but you actually believe the dribble that this website is spouting???