J
justasking4
Guest
The second one is a major problem for you since there is no evidence for it. No one knows what this is. You claim it but you have no way to show what it was.
Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
…what? I never knew my church’s congregation was a business institution. I love how you know so much about my church, did you attend it?
well, now you know.
if you can present to me evidence that your church is the church of the apostles, i will drop this assumption. if you can show that your church was present at the council of Nicea and other councils then i will drop this assumption. until then your church is unscriptural.
yes, i did, and i saw. sola scripture, faith alone, all that, nothing like the Church Jesus promised.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
in case you have not realized this. this only tells you that the Bible is the Book which contains the Word of God. no other book you know like (budhism, quran…) should we use is a mean of instruction. nothing here implies that we should use the Bible to put ourselves in authority. authority was given to chosen men by Jesus. Jesus is the authority.
if we all follow your enterpretation we all going to be in trouble. because if you can claim authority so can I and so can everyone else. after we all become authority, then noone will be left under us so we can exercise our authority over.
hope you can see the falsehood of your enterpretation. your religion tells you can enterpret the Bible for yourselves when in fact there are men over you teaching you and teaching you false enterpretation which you believe and try to use on others.
becareful my friend for you will be accountable for every soul that you mislead away from Christ. blindness is no excuse for you.
it is your resposibility to follow and obey the Church that Jesus found and trust His promise that His Church would be here until He returns.
Jesus warns us the blind leading the blind both will fall in the pit. make sure you have absolute the Truth before trying to lead others. make sure you are not being deceived and are trying to bring others with you.
you are not excused for being blind.
R
Ruthie
Guest
Originally Posted by coyotekate77 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*As for equal: Sacred Tradition (the ‘unwritten’ or oral teaching of Christ handed down to us from the apostles) which never contradicts Sacred Scripture.
justasking4 replied:
*
[this] *is a major problem for you since there is no evidence for it. No one knows what this is. You claim it but you have no way to show what it was.
*Have you ever read the Early Church Fathers? The Ante-Nicene Fathers (and the rest of 'em) are pretty clear about what the Church believed in the first few centuries.
Of course if you refuse to read them, or read only quotations taken out of context, then you can continue in your mistaken belief that there is no evidence for Tradition.
Ruthie
*As for equal: Sacred Tradition (the ‘unwritten’ or oral teaching of Christ handed down to us from the apostles) which never contradicts Sacred Scripture.
justasking4 replied:
*
[this] *is a major problem for you since there is no evidence for it. No one knows what this is. You claim it but you have no way to show what it was.
*Have you ever read the Early Church Fathers? The Ante-Nicene Fathers (and the rest of 'em) are pretty clear about what the Church believed in the first few centuries.
Of course if you refuse to read them, or read only quotations taken out of context, then you can continue in your mistaken belief that there is no evidence for Tradition.
Ruthie
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
they dont seem to realize that we have figured out their tactic of sola scripture. they discard every historical events that proves the CC. because since they only believe what is in the Bible they expect to proof the CC wrong. they throw logic, common sense and reason out of the window, that is how far they go to prove the CC wrong which they cannot do. when we use the Bible to show the CC teachings they come up with their own enterpretation which does not even make sense.
when we begin to ask them questions they ran.
J
justasking4
Guest
What Apostolic Teaching of the apostles themselves are you referring to?Yes, but such certainty is unavalaible to you, since you have rejected the Apostolic Teachings.
J
justasking4
Guest
Can you give me a couple of examples of “Traditons” by the fathers?
J
justasking4
Guest
You did not address the question i asked—What is greater than the inspired-inerrant Word of God?
Is it tradiition?
The pope?
The church?
What?
C
coyotekate77
Guest
You mean besides the definition of “Trinity”, and the decisions as to what books to include in the Bible?
How about the sinlessness of Mary?
It is addressed by the Fathers, you know, in several places.
How about the institution of Sunday as the day of worship, as opposed to Saturday? This is noted to be in place by the second century AD and is addressed in many places as being first praiseworthy (in that attendance at said services was dangerous with the church being persecuted) and then over the ensuing years after the persecutions stop it became a duty or precept of the Church, tied into (not superseding or replacing, but 'tied into) the 3rd commandment regarding the Sabbath.
How about the sacrament of reconciliation? This was first public, and later private. . .but it was always there. It goes into that ‘bind and loose’ thing and apostolic succession which are referenced in Scripture. It didn’t spring up out of nowhere–and some of our separated brethren still practice it, too, the same way we Catholics do.
A
Amolibri
Guest
I must agree. …and before anyone calls me an “un-Catholic” or a heretic
, I have visited many religious places, and have great respect for those believers.I think I can understand where the last 2 posters are coming from. I have to believe that the OP was doing some (unintentional?) baiting…and I feel disappointed about that. Why have a *non-Catholic religions *thread if its sole purpose is to demand that people admit they’re wrong???
I think Jesus would have disapproved. (as tough as that may be to wrap our heads around)
Is there a good reason why some must be disrespectful?
R
reteeks21
Guest
I have the same question a few times, and all I get is “well, you are on a catholic forum, so too bad.” Pretty childish. That’s like a kid saying “it’s my toy and you can only play with it the way I want you to.” We must keep in mind, though, many christians do this too often, and that’s a darn shame.I must agree. …and before anyone calls me an “un-Catholic” or a heretic
I think I can understand where the last 2 posters are coming from. I have to believe that the OP was doing some (unintentional?) baiting…and I feel disappointed about that. **Why have a *non-Catholic religions ***thread if its sole purpose is to demand that people admit they’re wrong???
I think Jesus would have disapproved. (as tough as that may be to wrap our heads around)
Is there a good reason why some must be disrespectful?
M
MDK
Guest
Let’s please not play word games here. Were you not (and still are) trying to set up a litmus test for the validity of the papacy, and continuity thereof? However, what you throw up is a red herring, because what this really boils down to is understanding of what Jesus did, and trusting Him. It’s very clear what Jesus did in establishing His Church, as it’s also recorded in Sacred Scritpture. Jesus also said He would be with it until the end of time, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (it will not fall into pernicious error in faith and morals, but will be and remain the pillar and ground of truth), and so I trust Him.
If you do desire to probe, as Thomas did, it needs to be done fairly and with a sense of decency, does it not? I honestly don’t know if or how much of what he did was preserved. Even if there were not recorded writing available, how does that prove or disprove anything? Some things are available to us and others are not. I know we have records for what the fourth Pope did in exercising papal authority. I simply desire to keep this on honest footing. Will you join me in this decent and honest endeavor? Like Thomas, you will find the Body of Christ, the Church built by Christ is true.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
ok. since yourself stablished that nothing can be greater than the Word of God, i want to see where you go with this.
M
MDK
Guest
Why do you claim “Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God?” Do the Scriptures even say this? Do you think God is limited to what was written down? What good are the Scriptures if one interprets incorrectly? Therefore, is it possible that God set up an infallible protector and teacher of the truths in Sacred Scripture?
J
justasking4
Guest
If you have no records to support the claim that Linus was a pope then all you have is an opinion since there are no facts to support it. If anything the history of the period looks more like a plurality of leaders rather than one supreme head.
I have been honest and forthright. If you want an honest footing then you are going to have to look at the history of it. Its going to take more than a list of popes to support the claim that Peter or Linus’ were popes. For one we need to see them exercising some kind of authority over the entire church and others recognizing it.
M
MDK
Guest
More red herrings by the way you present these questions… do you have a flock of these somewhere?
Is not Godly Tradition also the Word of God? Otherwise, it would be man-made tradition, would it not?
The Pope has protection of the Holy Spirit (within proper context, let’s not get into a lengthy discussion of where it is and is not, as that is for another board). The Pope himself is a fallible man, who also goes to confession. It’s only with the protection of the Holy Spirit that he is able to do what Jesus established for the rock of His Church.
The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, because of God. How can the Church uphold truth such as truth about Scripture, if it were a fallible teaching institution?
Are you trying to say that some of the Word of God is not equal to other Words of God? Is the Holy Spirit not able to provide protection such that the Holy Word of God is not protected?
You seem like a wild archer, blindly shooting arrows in every direction. Please seek truth, wisdom and understanding, instead of blindly attacking that which you do not understand.
M
MDK
Guest
Why does believing in God’s promise as written in Sacred Scripture and also passed down in Godly Tradition depend on me having records of what He did? What I said is I don’t know, as I don’t know everything. Do you claim to know everything? You lay denigrating comments with no evidence of your own. What I do know is your logic and claim have absolutely no merit whatsoever. Produce your “evidence” to us, but it may require a different thread.
To say you’ve been honest and forthright here is to redefine the words. That the Catholic Church had a second Pope, and Third, and Fourth,… and 266th definitely doesn’t depend on your false record-producing litmus test.
You claim “the history of the period looks more like a plurality of leaders rather than one supreme head.” I disagree, so were is your “evidence” to the contrary? As the challenger, who claims to have information, please present the information you claim to have based your conclusion on. Please let us examine such.
I think you’re getting into a line of specific anti-Papacy dialogue, so you may want to take it to a different thread. I’m willing to go there as well.
I assure you, if the Catholic Church were false, I would have left and would leave immediately. I trust Christ, and so my home remains secure because of Him.
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
Wait. Just hold on a second…How do you know that the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God?
Did biblical verses tell you this? Which ones?
If you can’t cite any verse, who told you about this man-made tradition? Or did you just rationalize this yourself?
And now to answer your question: The Holy Spirit.
C
ChristianRoots
Guest
I think you and I went down this road before, so I will jump ahead…Why have you assumed that the authority that produced the Scriptures in the first place no longer exists in that capacity? You **trusted **this authority to infallibly produce the Bible, yet you adamantly refuse to acknowledge it any longer in an authoritative capacity. Why? and Where are the biblical verses to support your reasoning?
If you say we cannont know anything for sure nowadays so we must only rely on the Bible, then your logic must also be applied to the authority that first produced the Bible as well. You must also concede that their conclusions may be dubious because their was no Scripture present to test it against!
You also do not find December 25th celebrated as Christmas in the Bible, either. Do you celebrate Christmas on December 25th?
Examined against what? Oh, ultimately the Bible…So where is that biblical verse again?
That’s like saying if we find any bones, they must not be in heaven.
.
I agree. Mary most likely did not know what the title meant. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t true for her either.
She must have thought that at the sight of the angel’s appearance. If not, what do you think Mary was thinking when she first saw the angel?
The title “Full of Grace” was an extraordinary greeting. Shouldn’t Mary have been elated at how she was addressed? The fact that she was troubled indicates that she recognized the unique greeting had some type of implication for her. Otherwise, you are giving Mary a reputation for being scared, worried, or wanting to be left alone ( i.e. troubled) when God approached her for a purpose.
**That is not the Mary of the Bible. **
I have already said it is not explicit in Scripture. But this is not problematic for Catholics since we do not rely only Sacred Scripture. We also equally depend on Sacred Tradition.
T
t68ware
Guest
I think when you talk to other non-Catholic Christians about proof of Scripture and put it in the context of proving the Catholic faith, you will run into issues. I too have talked to other Christians who insist on only the Gospels, but they lack the knowledge of what the early Church actually taught. When I was in college we studied the Didache, which was an excellent source to compliment church tradition. The next answer is I do not believe Bible verses conflict with one another, but they all must be understood in context and historical setting. I heard a priest say the Bible interprets itself, and that I agree with. Even in my Wesleyan tradition, we believe that also. John Wesley believed the Bible interprets itself so understanding of Scripture is not to be made of mans whims.
- Status