Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[schaick]

**First of all - it is not **arrogant to be able to trace the Catholic Church back to Christ. It is the plain and simple truth.

What IS arrogant is to claim that you belong to the Church Christ established when you are clearly not. You must remember that Protestantism came some 1500 years later and was born out of ecclesiastical divorce.

Secondly - please show me - in the Bible - where it says that the Bible is our Authority or where it says the “Successor to the Apostles = the Holy Bible”. It doesn’t even imply that.
This is complete and utter nonsense.

Actually I don’t have to prove anything, we have GOD’s Words, proof in itself.

The Holy Bible is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation.

There is no other piece of evidence that all of the earliest Church Father’s have agreed on to such an extent. We have the canon that GOD intended.

Catholicism with all it’s Pope came after the Church of Jerusalem and the local churches of Jesus’ time. There weren’t even local Bishops at first, and for sure there was not one supreme leader.

I know Catholics have multiple and varying lists of Popes that were retro fit to lead to Peter, but prove to me that “authority” was actually passed down directly from Peter and that it was only passed down to Popes.

What proof of the authority is there? Prove that only the Catholic Church has authority in Christian matters.

You know that movie where the guy said show me the money?

Well I say show me the Keys!! Can you prove to me that they authority was actually passed down through your Popes and that they still have it?

 

[elvisman]

I was wondering, if protestants think the truth is up for grabs by anyone, then why even bother going to church since their churches aren’t about worshiping God, but about learning the bible and everyone can learn the bible the same way at home. And why even take the Pastors opinion on the bible passages seriously if everyone else is just as skilled at interpreting them?

**You hit the nail right on the head. This is the danger - and the tragedy of Protestantism. **

**I have made no secret of the fact that many of my siblings left the Church and went different ways. Most of them went to a church established by my older sister and her husband who was ordained a minister. Over the years - I have personally witness that one church splinter off into fledgling sects three times because of disagreements with his teachings. **
This does not include the dozens of time people have left for other churches because they, too disagreed.

 

[Darron_Steele]

Written to someone else:

**I *haven’t ***derailed this thread at all. I was answering your challenges. You’re wrong, though - this thread IS about you and others like you.

**Hatred of Christ’s Church doesn’t **come merely in spewing venom directly against her. It comes disguised as people who claim to be Catholic (like you) yet reject her teachings. …

Okay, this is ridiculous. Criticism is not hatred.

I love the Churches of Christ. I no longer identify with the Churches of Christ because of their problems and how they would affect me, but I invested a lot of time and energy in trying to be a productive contributor to them after leaving.

I love the Disciples of Christ. I attend a local congregation. I do not agree with what our denominational agencies do. I am a blunt critic of what our denominational agencies do.

My wife loves me, but I am not perfect. When needed, she gives me criticisms.

I recently had a recent high school graduate in one of my college classes. The kid had a great head on his shoulders, but was making a number of reckless decisions that I saw to be a pattern and potential trouble later in life. I gave that kid quite a few bit of criticisms – because I cared.

If your line of thinking is correct, then parents who criticize their children do not love them. My wife would not love me. Obviously, that is not true – and accusations of such would be considered vile things.

This whole notion that CMatt25 hates the Catholic Church because he does not agree with everything the Vatican does, and he `dares’ to say so, is ridiculous. You are not a mind reader; you know nothing about how he feels.

**If you are going to be so vicious, you better be sure you are right – because as ruthless as you are being, if you are not right, the Lord will not be happy. I would take this as a warning, because
a) you have no way of being certain if you are right, and
b) if you are wrong, the Lord may vindicate him and chastise you.
Me, I would not think it is worth the risk.
**…

Nobody** is being ruthless. Some** of you mistake admonishing an unruly member for ruthlessness. We are commanded to do this as an act of mercy (1 Thess. 5:14), even to the point of shunning them if they continue in their rejection (2 Thess. 3:6).

---

You are wrong about a few things: I DO know that what I’m saying is right – not because *I *said it but because the Church teaches it. The Church is the Body of Christ, the Pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and He does not lie. This doesn’t make Elvisman right – it makes the CHURCH right. I am only espousing what the Body of Christ has taught.

---

Your** brand of “Lone Ranger Christianity” is not only unsupported by Scripture – it is rejected** (Rom. 12, 2 Thess. 3)

---

The problem with many non-Catholics is that they seem to think the truth is up for grabs – and that their many splintered sects can contain the fullness of truth.
WRONG**.**
Only the Church Christ himself** established contains the fullness of truth.
You know who said that?
GOD did (Matt. 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, 20:21-23, 1 Tim. 3:15).

Sir, I see that you
a) are not one to be reasoned with,
b) think your alleged `rightness’ in religious precepts justifies you treating people however you want
c) that you will continue to do whatever you want.

I am not arguing against Catholicism. I am not arguing for a non-Catholic form of Christianity.

What I am urging is that you behave in ways befitting a servant of Jesus Christ in your treatment of CMatt25.

**You convincing me that Catholicism’s precepts are correct will not convince me that it is okay to behave in ways unbefitting servants of Jesus Christ.
**
I believe the Bible is true. Catholicism teaches the same, although not in the same sense I hold the Bible to be inerrant. I think we both agree with the statement `The Bible is true.’ If someone was to deny that the Bible is true, and I retaliated by calling the police accusing the person of some crime s/he did not commit, it would not okay. The fact that the Bible is true would not make it okay for me to accuse someone of a crime s/he did not commit.

**When you accuse someone who loves something of hating it, then your accusation is false. The fact that you are making it in retaliation for criticizing an institution you think is infallible does not make a false accusation unfalse.' ** Ultimately, it is not me that your activities have to pass muster’ with. It will be the Lord. I know nothing of a `rightness exemption’ to the Lord’s standards for our conduct. He is omniscient and will not be fooled by the excuses you gave here, nor will He be impressed by your disregarding of His standards for our conduct regardless of your reasons.

 

[elvisman]

Actually I don’t have to prove anything, we have GOD’s Words, proof in itself.

The Holy Bible is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation.

Just what I thought. You cannot prove your point from Scripture because it’s just not there.

As for the shamefully ignorant claim that the "Holy Bible* is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation"*** - WRONG**. **

We have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who passed on the faith when there was NO canon of Scripture.
Did you actually think about what you claimed or did you just type in a rush?

There is no other piece of evidence that all of the earliest Church Father’s have agreed on to such an extent. We have the canon that GOD intended.

And the ONLY way for that canon to be revealed to the world was to have it declared by the Church - God’s earthly instrument and supreme Authority on earth.
Have you ever researched how the Biblical canon came into being? How about the New Testament itself? I didn’t think so . . .

Catholicism with all it’s Pope came after the Church of Jerusalem and the local churches of Jesus’ time. There weren’t even local Bishops at first, and for sure there was not one supreme leader.

Are you serious? Bishops are mentioned in Scripture (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 3:2, titus 1:7-9) as well as in the writings of the Early Church:
Ignatius (BISHOP of Antioch)
**“Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110[/COLOR]]).

I know Catholics have multiple and varying lists of Popes that were retro fit to lead to Peter, but prove to me that “authority” was actually passed down directly from Peter and that it was only passed down to Popes.

What proof of the authority is there? Prove that only the Catholic Church has authority in Christian matters.

You know that movie where the guy said show me the money?

Well I say show me the Keys!! Can you prove to me that they authority was actually passed down through your Popes and that they still have it?
The Keys are in the 265 Popes we’ve had since Peter.
They can ALL be traced back to him:
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm**

 

[elvisman]

Sir, I see that you

a) are not one to be reasoned with,
b) think your alleged `rightness’ in religious precepts justifies you treating people however you want
c) that you will continue to do whatever you want.

On the contrary, I am easy to reason with.
But – if by “reason”, you mean “abandon” the truths of God revealed through his Church – you never get your way.
I have no alleged rightness when it comes to Christ’s only Church. The CHURCH is right (1 Tim. 3:15).

I am not arguing against Catholicism. I am not arguing for a non-Catholic form of Christianity.

What I am urging is that you behave in ways befitting a servant of Jesus Christ in your treatment of CMatt25.

As for CMatt25, Tweetymom and other would-be I will continue to expose their heterodox/heretical teachings for the sake of those less-catechized who are searching for the truth.

You convincing me that Catholicism’s precepts are correct will not convince me that it is okay to behave in ways unbefitting servants of Jesus Christ.

I believe the Bible is true. Catholicism teaches the same, although not in the same sense I hold the Bible to be inerrant. I think we both agree with the statement `The Bible is true.’ If someone was to deny that the Bible is true, and I retaliated by calling the police accusing the person of some crime s/he did not commit, it would not okay. The fact that the Bible is true would not make it okay for me to accuse someone of a crime s/he did not commit.

When you accuse someone who loves something of hating it, then your accusation is false. The fact that you are making it in retaliation for criticizing an institution you think is infallible does not make a false accusation `unfalse.'

In John 15:18-20, Jesus told us how the world felt about him – who is TRUTH itself:
***"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. ***
***If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. ***
Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.”

You CANNOT claim to be a lover of the truth when you espouse and proliferate lies.

Ultimately, it is not me that your activities have to `pass muster’ with. It will be the Lord.

I know nothing of a `rightness exemption’ to the Lord’s standards for our conduct. He is omniscient and will not be fooled by the excuses you gave here, nor will He be impressed by your disregarding of His standards for our conduct regardless of your reasons.

**As I stated earlier – my admonishment of these unruly brothers and sisters is commanded of me **(1 Thess. 5:14, ****2 Thess. 3:**6).
I will, therefore, continue to proclaim the truth and will expose anybody who leads people away from that truth.

 

[Roblox84]

Just what I thought. You cannot prove your point from Scripture because it’s just not there.

As for the shamefully ignorant claim that the "Holy Bible* is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation"*** - WRONG**. **

We have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who passed on the faith when there was NO canon of Scripture.
Did you actually think about what you claimed or did you just type in a rush?

And the ONLY way for that canon to be revealed to the world was to have it declared by the Church - God’s earthly instrument and supreme Authority on earth.
Have you ever researched how the Biblical canon came into being? How about the New Testament itself? I didn’t think so . . .

Are you serious? Bishops are mentioned in Scripture (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 3:2, titus 1:7-9) as well as in the writings of the Early Church:
Ignatius (BISHOP of Antioch)
**"**Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110[/COLOR]]).

The Keys are in the 265 Popes we’ve had since Peter.
They can ALL be traced back to him:
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

So what I want to know is when the bible was not yet written or compiled, the people in Churches at that time where just guessing on how to worship God? For hundreds of years before the bible people were saying “I can’t wait for the bible to finally come out and tell us what to do” so we don’t have to do all the wrong things that were taught to us by the apostles.

I’m sorry if this may sound rude, but the arguments for bible-only are just weird. If the Church came first, what other proof is even necessary despite of what bible passages can be quoted? It’s like a mom that gives birth to her child teaches it everything and then when the Child gets older they throw their teacher (mom) to the curb. How can a person be so blind as to not see this basic logic?

 

[elvisman]

So what I want to know is when the bible was not yet written or compiled, the people in Churches at that time where just guessing on how to worship God? For hundreds of years before the bible people were saying “I can’t wait for the bible to finally come out and tell us what to do” so we don’t have to do all the wrong things that were taught to us by the apostles.

I’m sorry if this may sound rude, but the arguments for bible-only are just weird. If the Church came first, what other proof is even necessary despite of what bible passages can be quoted? It’s like a mom that gives birth to her child teaches it everything and then when the Child gets older they throw their teacher (mom) to the curb. How can a person be so blind as to not see this basic logic?

Yes - they have to do some pretty** fancy**** logical and historical acrobatics to come to the conclusion that the majority of early Christians were lost due to the fact that there was no set canon of Scripture. **

---

They also have to*** ignore***** the collective writings of the Early Church on matters of doctrine, morals and tradition.**

 

[Roblox84]

Yes - they have to do some pretty** fancy**** logical and historical acrobatics to come to the conclusion that the majority of early Christians were lost due to the fact that there was no** set canon of Scripture.

---

They also have to*** ignore***** the collective writings of the Early Church on matters of doctrine, morals and tradition.**

Man, that’s what i’m talking about. How does that even make any sense to the most rational person. Those people were living in the earliest times after Christ. So if anyone would get the most unchanged teachings, it would be those people. I wonder how an apostle would feel if one of us travelled back to the last supper and told them what God is really saying here.

The same thing can also be asked as to why Catholics are taught the history of the bible and the Church and bible-only people are not. Is it to avoid any possibilities of the bible-only people making a connection between the early church fathers, the Catholics compiling the bible and the Catholic Church? And then they are also told that history also didn’t happen the way it was documented.

 

[fbl9]

Hi Roblox84:ne may hate the Catholic Church because they see it as error ridden,and thus because of the percieved “errors” the Church is leading people to hell instead of heaven.
In my case i have the opposite attitude, a hatred of the errors outside the Catholic Church which makes it sometimes difficult to convey love for those who are promoting error.

 

[Roblox84]

Hi Roblox84:ne may hate the Catholic Church because they see it as error ridden,and thus because of the percieved “errors” the Church is leading people to hell instead of heaven.
In my case i have the opposite attitude, a hatred of the errors outside the Catholic Church which makes it sometimes difficult to convey love for those who are promoting error.

Absolutely. But then Catholics aren’t the ones doing anything wrong. If bible only christians believe that anyone can pick up a bible and interpret it, then in their eyes it should seem that is exactly what the Catholics are doing, so why would they get mad at us doing the same thing they are doing and which they so strongly believe in? And if bible-only christians are taught that any interpretation is just as good as the last and think that there are many truths and as long as another religion worships the same God, then the rest shouldn’t matter. I can’t help but notice that these attacks are made because they feel threatened by Catholics. Why would they care that a Catholic does more things to please God and not just takes the quick and easy route? And how do you explain the fact that it is the biggest religion and that most of those people wouldn’t ever be anything else? So if someone thinks that there are a billion Catholics out there that are learning the wrong thing because they can’t think for themselves, then they have issues. And also thinking that their little denomination of a million people has the only truth.

 

[schaick]

So what I want to know is when the bible was not yet written or compiled, the people in Churches at that time where just guessing on how to worship God? For hundreds of years before the bible people were saying “I can’t wait for the bible to finally come out and tell us what to do” so we don’t have to do all the wrong things that were taught to us by the apostles.

Problem is we can’t agree on when the *Catholic Church *came about I say sometime after 200AD.

Jesus started building His Church at the first Pentacost in Jerusalem.

Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
When did Paul live, ca 5 - 67 AD. So the Gospels that we have today actually existed before 67AD.

Papias mentions Matthew and Mark, by way of Eusebius.

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

Luke 1
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1
**1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

 

[Roblox84]

Problem is we can’t agree on when the *Catholic Church *came about I say sometime after 200AD.

Jesus started building His Church at the first Pentacost in Jerusalem.

Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
When did Paul live, ca 5 - 67 AD. So the Gospels that we have today actually existed before 67AD.

Papias mentions Matthew and Mark, by way of Eusebius.

1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”**

Footnotes:
1 Timothy 5:18 Deut. 25:4
1 Timothy 5:18 Luke 10:7

Luke 1**
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1
**1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach **2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Yeah…but a person went to Church to hear those gospels. Or the gospels where taught to them by apostles. They didn’t take the paper with the gospels and then say this is all they need.

 

[schaick]

Just what I thought. You cannot prove your point from Scripture because it’s just not there.

As for the shamefully ignorant claim that the "Holy Bible* is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation"*** - WRONG**. **

We have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who passed on the faith when there was NO canon of Scripture.
Did you actually think about what you claimed or did you just type in a rush?

And the ONLY way for that canon to be revealed to the world was to have it declared by the Church - God’s earthly instrument and supreme Authority on earth.
Have you ever researched how the Biblical canon came into being? How about the New Testament itself? I didn’t think so . . .

Are you serious? Bishops are mentioned in Scripture (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim. 3:2, titus 1:7-9) as well as in the writings of the Early Church:
Ignatius (BISHOP of Antioch)
**"**Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110[/COLOR]]).

The Keys are in the 265 Popes we’ve had since Peter.
They can ALL be traced back to him:
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

OK, so you don’t believe that what the Apostles wrote in the Holy Bible everything we need for our salvation.

You believe GOD’s Word is insufficient? The Apostles missed something?

Where do you look for the truth of salvation, the truth about Jesus, the truth of the Eucharist, Jesus virgin birth, baptism? What tradition about Jesus do get from other then the Holy Bible?

We had the Gospels being passed around before there was a “Catholic Church”. Yes, the Catholic Church did then make canon what GOD had already chosen.

Sorry for confusing should have added -Yes but not Bishop as defined by the Catholic Church.
First century- church headed by a local Bishop. Called catholic as in universal.
Second century - bishops supervised a larger territory over several churches.
Third century -joining of church and state real problems begin.

Acts 20
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Many early Popes don’t fit this mold.
Titus 1
7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

I have seen varies lists of Popes and antepopes-is that the term? The Popes that were but then it was decided they were heretics and were not considered Popes.

All this is simply theory. How do we know that the laying on of hands took? There were way too many imoral Popes. There is no concrete proof of this authority being present or handed down.

Prove there is authority in the Pope.

 

[Matt_Macomber]

OK, so you don’t believe that what the Apostles wrote in the Holy Bible everything we need for our salvation.

You believe GOD’s Word is insufficient? The Apostles missed something?

Where do you look for the truth of salvation, the truth about Jesus, the truth of the Eucharist, Jesus virgin birth, baptism? What tradition about Jesus do get from other then the Holy Bible?

We had the Gospels being passed around before there was a “Catholic Church”. Yes, the Catholic Church did then make canon what GOD had already chosen.

Sorry for confusing should have added -Yes but not Bishop as defined by the Catholic Church.
First century- church headed by a local Bishop. Called catholic as in universal.
Second century - bishops supervised a larger territory over several churches.
Third century -joining of church and state real problems begin.

Acts 20
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Many early Popes don’t fit this mold.
Titus 1
7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

I have seen varies lists of Popes and antepopes-is that the term? The Popes that were but then it was decided they were heretics and were not considered Popes.

All this is simply theory. How do we know that the laying on of hands took? There were way too many imoral Popes. There is no concrete proof of this authority being present or handed down.

Prove there is authority in the Pope.

It’s not what the apostles missed or what wasn’t written in the bible. It’s what the protestants missed when they left the Church.

 

[Roblox84]

OK, so you don’t believe that what the Apostles wrote in the Holy Bible everything we need for our salvation.

You believe GOD’s Word is insufficient? The Apostles missed something?

Where do you look for the truth of salvation, the truth about Jesus, the truth of the Eucharist, Jesus virgin birth, baptism? What tradition about Jesus do get from other then the Holy Bible?

We had the Gospels being passed around before there was a “Catholic Church”. Yes, the Catholic Church did then make canon what GOD had already chosen.

Sorry for confusing should have added -Yes but not Bishop as defined by the Catholic Church.
First century- church headed by a local Bishop. Called catholic as in universal.
Second century - bishops supervised a larger territory over several churches.
Third century -joining of church and state real problems begin.

Acts 20
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Many early Popes don’t fit this mold.
Titus 1
7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

I have seen varies lists of Popes and antepopes-is that the term? The Popes that were but then it was decided they were heretics and were not considered Popes.

All this is simply theory. How do we know that the laying on of hands took? There were way too many imoral Popes. There is no concrete proof of this authority being present or handed down.

Prove there is authority in the Pope.

It’s not what the apostles or the bible missed. It’s what Protestants missed when they left the Church.

As for proving authority in the Pope, I have to say he has lots of authority. He’s the one who decided when Christmas is or even something such as authorizing canons of the bible. Can pastor Joe Schmoe do this?

But if you are asking for a biblical proof. Well frankly I would say that God wouldn’t want people running astray or using the bible to their own advantage and thus put an authority in place. It’s funny the way you guy’s think because you take God so lightly. You believe that unless someone believes in God, they’re fine. And that if someone like the southern baptists use the bible to allow them to keep slaves, this is also fine because hey, they are using the bible. That is a far off example, but you get my point. Anyone can mislead anyone using bible verses. That is why God put an authority on earth so that this wouldn’t happen. Why is this so hard to bear?

Why is it so hard to just admit that there is an authority in place and the original Church, but that you just prefer the protestant style of worship? I mean, I bet there are protestants that disagree with a lot of their teachings, but still would rather go to their Church because it’s a lot more newer age and less ritualistic. Would that be so wrong to admit to?

 

[elvisman]

OK, so you don’t believe that what the Apostles wrote in the Holy Bible everything we need for our salvation.

You believe GOD’s Word is insufficient? The Apostles missed something?

Where do you look for the truth of salvation, the truth about Jesus, the truth of the Eucharist, Jesus virgin birth, baptism? What tradition about Jesus do get from other then the Holy Bible?

We had the Gospels being passed around before there was a “Catholic Church”. Yes, the Catholic Church did then make canon what GOD had already chosen.

Sorry for confusing should have added -Yes but not Bishop as defined by the Catholic Church.
First century- church headed by a local Bishop. Called catholic as in universal.
Second century - bishops supervised a larger territory over several churches.
Third century -joining of church and state real problems begin.

Acts 20
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Timothy 3
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

Many early Popes don’t fit this mold.
Titus 1
7Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

I have seen varies lists of Popes and antepopes-is that the term? The Popes that were but then it was decided they were heretics and were not considered Popes.

All this is simply theory. How do we know that the laying on of hands took? There were way too many imoral Popes. There is no concrete proof of this authority being present or handed down.

Prove there is authority in the Pope.

You don’t listen very well, do you?

**I said that we have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who passed on the faith when there was NO canon of Scripture. **And the ONLY way for that canon to be revealed to the world was to have it declared by the Catholic Church - God’s earthly instrument and supreme Authority on earth.
**Have you ever researched how the Biblical canon came into being? How about the New Testament itself? **

In short, my anti-Catholic friend - there WAS NO BIBLE in the first 3½ centuries of the church’s existence. Read about the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th Century where the canon was declared. Many areas only has certain letters and Gospels but nobody knew what the Bible was until the Catholic Church declared what the Holy Spirit revealed.

You honestly believe that the Catholic Church didn’t some into being until the 3rd century? I gave you a quote from Ignatius of Antioch who wrote about the Catholic Church in about 110 A.D:
**Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110[/COLOR]]).

This was already the established name of the church by the end of the 1st Century. How can you read that and STILL deny?
I’ll tell you how in 2 words: Spritual Pride.**

 

[schaick]

Just what I thought. You cannot prove your point from Scripture because it’s just not there.

As for the shamefully ignorant claim that the "Holy Bible* is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation"*** - WRONG**. **

We have the teachings of the Early Church Fathers who passed on the faith when there was NO canon of Scripture.
Did you actually think about what you claimed or did you just type in a rush?

Actually we have writtings from Early Church Fathers before the canon was finalized. Good as example for us, but these** are not GOD inspired Words**.

These very Church Fathers looked to the writings of the Apostles, the Holy Bible for proof of their statements. That is how the canon was decided- use by,referenced by the early Church Fathers.

The Holy Bible is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation.

Scripture is the very breathe of GOD, direction from the Holy Bible is direction from GOD. Authority of Scripture isn’t separate from God’s authority.

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Roblox84]

Actually we have writtings from Early Church Fathers before the canon was finalized. Good as example for us, but these** are not GOD inspired Words**.

These very Church Fathers looked to the writings of the Apostles, the Holy Bible for proof of their statements. That is how the canon was decided- use by,referenced by the early Church Fathers.

The Holy Bible is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation.

Scripture is the very breathe of GOD, direction from the Holy Bible is direction from GOD. Authority of Scripture isn’t separate from God’s authority.

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The bible is a useful tool for teaching for sure. But where does it say that the bible is the foundation for your salvation? As someone stated on my other thread, you don’t even need the bible to be saved. It is through the Church that we are taught that salvation is only through God, not the bible.

 

[tweetymom]

The bible is a useful tool for teaching for sure. But where does it say that the bible is the foundation for your salvation? As someone stated on my other thread, you don’t even need the bible to be saved. It is through the Church that we are taught that salvation is only through God, not the bible.

And where does it say that only the CC saves?

 

[Roblox84]

Actually we have writtings from Early Church Fathers before the canon was finalized. Good as example for us, but these** are not GOD inspired Words**.

These very Church Fathers looked to the writings of the Apostles, the Holy Bible for proof of their statements. That is how the canon was decided- use by,referenced by the early Church Fathers.

The Holy Bible is the only concrete evidence we have from the Apostles that shows what we must do to follow GOD’s plan for our salvation.

Scripture is the very breathe of GOD, direction from the Holy Bible is direction from GOD. Authority of Scripture isn’t separate from God’s authority.

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So…when the Protestants left the Church they didn’t take these references that were proved by the bible with them and therefore they had to rebuild on the knowledge of the Christian faith?