Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[Prodigal_Son1]

biblegateway.com/versions/Youngs-Literal-Translation-YLT-Bible/
*This is an **extremely literal translation ***that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

In Bible studies I have been encouraged to use all differant translations. In fact there has been actual requests put out for people to bring in the differant translations.

I disagree, because you’ve ‘found’ one to agree does not make it correct. The numbers are against you and that website on the tense of ‘shall be loosed’. It is making scriptures fit a theology; a theology to reject the Catholic Church it appears.

Yes I know, even the Aramaic translates it the same way. Combining the literal tenses and the way binding and loosing was used by the Jews the literal makes much more sense. In effect it keeps man from applying his own rules and so only GOD’s Law applies to the binding and loosing.

In post #531
Sacred Traditions, that we hold to whether written or spoken, was passed through the Apostolic succession, of those with Apostolic authority, that have the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose, those that we are to observe and do whatsoever they say to us, because we know, through our faith in Christ that He can accomplish all things.

Are you saying that the Sacred Traditions** are** that there was Apostolic Succession and the keys were passed down with authority to bind and loose?

Or are you saying that is** how **they were passed down?

Yes, the keys went went the offices, chosen and appointed by Christ. The Apostles recognized that ‘offices’ had to be filled when vacated, according to the scriptures they were raised and lived by.

**Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. **

Scriptures clearly tell us God set the ‘offices’ and the order of the hierarchy is listed in scriptures.

**1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. **

None of these offices are ‘self appointed’. They were through the imposition of hands, by those who were appointed.

Now, not to change the subject, let me ask you a question. Do you believe that people who believe Mary to remain ever virgin has an impact on their salvation? If so, please explain how?

Yes and so mere Christians must not - read Romans 14

I actually had a visit from the Holy Spirit on this one- Catholic friends of mine and some things they were saying and doing. Basically the Holy Spirit told me*** “it was not of your concern”***. I heard the voice - not mine and it used language not mine and then Romans 14 came to mind.

I understand the concept of everything Catholic about Mary- I don’t agree but it is not of my concern. I can point out what Scripture says but that is all I can say about the matter.

I’m sorry, but I cannot see anything referencing that a belief such as Mary to remain ever virgin has an impact on one’s salvation. Would you care to be more specific on exactly where scriptures indicate such a belief has an impact?

 

[schaick]

QUOTE=Prodigal Son1;6477300]We have the scriptures and the oral tradition of the Apostolic succession. You can read the writings of the early Church fathers and see what the Eucharist is, from the beginning of Christianity.

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit comes to only the Roman Catholic Church? And that only a Priest can consecrate the Bread and Wine?

If that is the case then only a Catholic baptism by a Catholic Priest is a true baptism- which would be a sad fact- I have helped in the baptism of a dying infant where no clergy was available.

I had an Aunt say that my parents who by the way are celebrating 60 years together are not and never were married because it wasn’t dome in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest!

We are not to tempt the Lord our God, or put Him to the test.

But we can and should test the prophets and teachers.

Here is something I have been pondering afraid to ask or again I will be accused of hating the Catholic Church:

**Does the Holy Spirit come to an immoral person **whoever he may be?

If that person is not displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit do we know for certain that the consecration of Eucharist is valid, or the baptism “took”? Especially when that person is later excommunicated from the Catholic Church or people decide he wasn’t really a Pope after all.

Say another, a non-Catholic Pastor is dripping with the fruits of the Holy Spirit- yet he can not consecrate the Eucharist to be valid? Does that make any sense? Think of the Bible verses about the man casting out the demons that was not in the group with the disciples

One answer will mean that it is in fact GOD, the Holy Spirit is doing all the work, man is merely the conduit.

The other answer will mean that there are many out there and through the centuries that have not been truly baptized and have not recieved the true Eucharist.

The Apostles were of the Catholic Church. Not only did they safeguard the Bible, they translated it, over and over, having every opportunity to make changes, yet you trust the Bible but not the keepers?

I trust the Apostles as they were members of the universal Church the Church Jesus is building. Now don’t get me wrong the Pope is also a member of the universal Church that Jesus is building. Not all of the universal Church is contained in the Catholic Church.

Don’t forget the Apostles also gave us statements of faith and labeled concepts containes in the Holy Bible. I trust the Early Church Fathers and Apostles because they go back to the Holy Bible as their final rule, authority.

Their “oral traditon” was first and second hand as many were students of the Disciples.

 

[Quarles47]

I will paraphase Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen for this…" There is less then a hundred people that hate the Catholic Church for what She really is, but millions that hate the Catholic Church for what they think she is."

 

[The_Geographer]

You sound very confused. One need only read your post to figure that out. I’ll be praying for you and other Catholics that are this confused.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit comes to only the Roman Catholic Church? And that only a Priest can consecrate the Bread and Wine?

Scriptures show us the Apostolic succession, of authoritative men, starting with the men Christ chose and appointed. With this in mind, show us where anyone outside of a proper appointment can do anything of authority as commanded by Christ, to the Apostles?

But we can and should test the prophets and teachers.

Against what measurement? In other words, the Catholic Church was the first Church, now it’s being tested by people outside, from Churches formed from the 1500s unto the present day, some without even acknowledging the early Church fathers and the instructions they passed along.

I’d like to point out that you originally wanted to ‘see’ proof of the Holy Spirit. When that was responded too, now you want to ‘test’ appointed men of the Church.

How many times have I pointed out the teaching of Matthew 23? God told the people to observe and do whatsoever they say to you, then He goes on with a list of ‘woes’ upon those charged over the people. Where does He teach anyone to question the teaching itself?

**Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. **

Here is something I have been pondering afraid to ask or again I will be accused of hating the Catholic Church:

**Does the Holy Spirit come to an immoral person **whoever ****he may be?

If that person is not displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit do we know for certain that the consecration of Eucharist is valid, or the baptism “took”? Especially when that person is later excommunicated from the Catholic Church or people decide he wasn’t really a Pope after all.

By immoral, do you mean sinful? Who was without sin that Christ chose and appointed over His Church? Did He not breathe on them and tell them to receive the Holy Ghost?

The office, within the Church, has cooperation of the Holy Spirit, as promised by Christ. The ‘man’, within the office, has plenty to concern himself with according to the many warnings of Christ to the ‘clergy’.

Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Say another, a non-Catholic Pastor is dripping with the fruits of the Holy Spirit- yet he can not consecrate the Eucharist to be valid? Does that make any sense? Think of the Bible verses about the man casting out the demons that was not in the group with the disciples

One answer will mean that it is in fact GOD, the Holy Spirit is doing all the work, man is merely the conduit.

The other answer will mean that there are many out there and through the centuries that have not been truly baptized and have not recieved the true Eucharist.

Are those non-Catholic ‘Pastors’ of the Apostolic succession as described in sciptures?

Christ chose and appointed more than just the Apostles, but He had ONE teaching. There were not multiple applications of His teaching.

I trust the Apostles as they were members of the universal Church the Church Jesus is building. Now don’t get me wrong the Pope is also a member of the universal Church that Jesus is building. Not all of the universal Church is contained in the Catholic Church.

Don’t forget the Apostles also gave us statements of faith and labeled concepts containes in the Holy Bible. I trust the Early Church Fathers and Apostles because they go back to the Holy Bible as their final rule, authority.

Their “oral traditon” was first and second hand as many were students of the Disciples.

What you have failed to do is show us that the universal Church meant many believers with different applications, which appears to be a justification of many denominations. There was ONE ‘universal’, or Catholic, Church. Catholic means universal. The Church is worldwide, as Christ commanded.

If God could protect His truth through the oral tradition of those on the chair of Moses, why can’t He protect His truth through the oral tradition today?

Now, you answered many questions with more questions, some only ‘hypothetical’ in nature, yet you haven’t addressed questions addressed to you to answer. Questions about some of your beliefs that are not in scriptures, as far as I can see. Why is that? For your convenience, I am reposting those questions below, so you may share your ‘truth’.

Where is the proof the Bible is indisputably the ‘final authority’?

Where is the proof the Bible is to be interpreted by each and every individual that reads it?

Where it the proof of one faith and many applications of the faith?

 

[schaick]

I’m sorry, but I cannot see anything referencing that a belief such as Mary to remain ever virgin has an impact on one’s salvation. Would you care to be more specific on exactly where scriptures indicate such a belief has an impact?

I agree and I have been asking that for some time, but by your answer here I see it isn’t. Also I wonder if this is part of the Catholic Sacred Tradition?

Did you read Romans 14?

2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him

Catholics eating only fish on Fridays if it strengthens the Catholic’s faith, mere Christians must not question it and cause that person to stumble. If the Catholic Church were to say it is required for your salvation, that would be preaching another Gospel.

Different application:
If a Catholics adherance to all the things said about Mary by the Catholic Church strengthens their faith in Jesus no Christian should question it.

IF the Catholic Church were to say you can only have salvation if you believe all things extra things about Mary then that is preaching another Gospel.

By strengthening ones faith in Jesus then it does effect your salvation or maybe reassures you of your salvation.

 

[schaick]

You sound very confused. One need only read your post to figure that out. I’ll be praying for you and other Catholics that are this confused.

LOL! no there are 2 people talking here - should look like this:

We have the scriptures and the oral tradition of the Apostolic succession. You can read the writings of the early Church fathers and see what the Eucharist is, from the beginning of Christianity.

Where does it say that the Holy Spirit comes to only the Roman Catholic Church? And that only a Priest can consecrate the Bread and Wine?

If that is the case then only a Catholic baptism by a Catholic Priest is a true baptism- which would be a sad fact- I have helped in the baptism of a dying infant where no clergy was available.

I had an Aunt say that my parents who by the way are celebrating 60 years together are not and never were married because it wasn’t dome in a Catholic Church by a Catholic Priest!

But we can and should test the prophets and teachers.

Here is something I have been pondering afraid to ask or again I will be accused of hating the Catholic Church:

Does the Holy Spirit come to an immoral person whoever he may be?

If that person is not displaying the fruits of the Holy Spirit do we know for certain that the consecration of Eucharist is valid, or the baptism “took”? Especially when that person is later excommunicated from the Catholic Church or people decide he wasn’t really a Pope after all.

Say another, a non-Catholic Pastor is dripping with the fruits of the Holy Spirit- yet he can not consecrate the Eucharist to be valid? Does that make any sense? Think of the Bible verses about the man casting out the demons that was not in the group with the disciples

One answer will mean that it is in fact GOD, the Holy Spirit is doing all the work, man is merely the conduit.

The other answer will mean that there are many out there and through the centuries that have not been truly baptized and have not recieved the true Eucharist.

I trust the Apostles as they were members of the universal Church the Church Jesus is building. Now don’t get me wrong the Pope is also a member of the universal Church that Jesus is building. Not all of the universal Church is contained in the Catholic Church.

Don’t forget the Apostles also gave us statements of faith and labeled concepts containes in the Holy Bible. I trust the Early Church Fathers and Apostles because they go back to the Holy Bible as their final rule, authority.

Their “oral traditon” was first and second hand as many were students of the Disciples.

Others besides Catholic priests can validly consecrate the Eucharist, provided they are part of the chain of apostolic succession. There is no indication your pastor is so he cannot validy consecrate the Eucharist, regardless of his personal qualities.

Also you are now moving onto other sacraments. The Catholic Church recognises Baptisms carried out in a Trinitarian model as valid. Thus Baptism in most Christian denominations is valid, although both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches reject the validity of Mormon Baptisms, as do other Churches also.

The marriage you mention would be a valid one - the couple are non-Catholic and would not have been bound by Catholic norms as a result.

Simply put, unless you personally have received the Eucharist in either a Catholic or Orthodox Church* you have not received the true Eucharist at any point in your life.

*I know there are some other Churches whose priests may also consecrate a valid Eucharist - but the Orthodox and Catholic Churches constitute the vast majority so it’s easiest to mention them primarily.

 

[Cinette]

You are saying that I am not.
…

So my wanting proof of things is showing a hatred? You choose to ignore those who present you with proof my friend.

Don’t you see how odd it is that Catholics keep talking about Sacred Traditions then no one can tell me what they are? I did! I mean come on you supposedly hold them on equal turf with Scripture. No neeed to worry about this I have started another thread on the subject. If you continue to talk to yourself and ignore the (name removed by moderator)ut given by other posters then I for one will not go to your “other thread” Waste of time and effort!

I want to see proof that the Holy Spirit is not involved in the consecration of my Church’s Eucharist.Jesus founded only one Church and the Holy Spirit guides that Church for everyone. If some people break away and begin other churches then what do you expect??? Who founded your church? What is its history? Do you know the facts?

You are saying that you are allowed to be offended at my statements, but I am not allowed to be offended at yours?!? If our statements are true and yours are not then yes my friend we are allowed to be offended and you are not!

Cinette - didn’t you read all of my posts? I said I did not hate the Catholic Church but did hate the arrogance portrayed. You interpret our saying that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded as arrogance. That is unfortunate. The Catholic Church is not ours - it is for the whole world.

The Catholic Church did not give us the Holy Bible- the Apostles did. Actually it was those who succeeded the Apostles and they all belonged to the Church founded by Jesus and placed in the hands of the Apostles. What the **Catholic Church did was hold and safeguard the Holy Bible **until someone came along to give it to all the people.I agree with you here - the bible is for all just as the Church is for all. We didn’t invent the Church it was created by Jesus for all of us. Just like salvation is intended for all - we have to yield to and accept Jesus’ great gift of salvation.

God love you Schaick
Cinette::yup::yup::yup:

 

[schaick]

Scriptures show us the Apostolic succession, of authoritative men, starting with the men Christ chose and appointed. With this in mind, show us where anyone outside of a proper appointment can do anything of authority as commanded by Christ, to the Apostles?

My Pastor was chosen by GOD-called. He studied everything set forth by the GOD, Jesus, the Disciples, Paul, the Early Church Fathers - in Hebrew and Greek. He studied at a recognized Seminary- Concordia University system. Did a vicarage under an ordained Pastor, went back to seminary, preached at a few different places-including a jail. Was then called by our congregation.

Against what measurement? In other words, the Catholic Church was the first Church, now it’s being tested by people outside, from Churches formed from the 1500s unto the present day, some without even acknowledging the early Church fathers and the instructions they passed along.

There is where we will never agree, the Catholic Church is simply a denomination of the universal Church Jesus is building.

I’d like to point out that you originally wanted to ‘see’ proof of the Holy Spirit. When that was responded too, now you want to ‘test’ appointed men of the Church.

The test is being able to see the Fruits of the Spirit. Why wouldn’t I want to see the Fruits of the Spirit in a man directing me in what to follow for my salvation?

How many times have I pointed out the teaching of Matthew 23? God told the people to observe and do whatsoever they say to you, then He goes on with a list of ‘woes’ upon those charged over the people. Where does He teach anyone to question the teaching itself?

I have explained many times what that means. Moses wasn’t making up new regulations he was following GOD’s Law in delivering rulings. Just as the binding and loosing must follow GOD’s Law, not a man-made ruling.

By immoral, do you mean sinful? Who was without sin that Christ chose and appointed over His Church? Did He not breathe on them and tell them to receive the Holy Ghost?

I found a great article explaining my question:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea1.asp

**White Smoke, Valid Pope
A Heretic Pope Would Govern Illicitly—but Validly **
By Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S.

*What I will show is that the 1917 Code of Canon Law, together with traditional papal conclave legislation, leaves no room for the view that the commission of heresy or apostasy prevents a man from validly attaining or retaining the papal office. *
On the basis of twentieth-century canon law (found in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes), a pope who fulfilled the canonical requirements for heresy—that is, who pertinaciously doubted or denied one or more truths to be believed with divine and Catholic faith (cf. 1983 Code 751; 1917 Code 1325 §2)—would not have the moral right before God to be pope. Therefore, his remaining in office would be illicit. Still, if he refused to resign, he would truly be the pope in the sense that his acts of papal governance would still be valid before God and the Church. It should go without saying that divine providence would never permit him to define his heresy ex cathedra. The dogma of papal infallibility assures us this can never happen.*

Here it gets tricky the immoral Pope excomunicates Luther illicitly, but it remains a valid excommunication. Luther refuses to give up his post- he is acting illicitly but everyting he does is valid:

*For instance, a bishop who carries out an episcopal consecration without papal mandate acts illicitly but validly. He violates a just law, but the man he ordains receives the sacramental powers of a bishop so that he in turn can ordain true priests capable of offering the holy sacrifice of the Mass. A priest who celebrates Mass while in a state of mortal sin or without using proper vestments acts illicitly. But, assuming there are no other defects in the way he offers Mass, it is still valid: The bread and wine he consecrates truly become the body and blood of Christ.

… For instance, a bishop who appoints a certain priest as pastor of a parish knowing that the man is morally or psychologically unfit for the task acts illicitly, since the appointment violates canon law (cf. canon 521 §2, 1983 Code; canon 453 §2, 1917 Code). But the appointment is still valid. In other words, that priest is the rightful pastor of the parish so that, for instance, the marriages he witnesses there will be true marriages. The parishioners are obliged to accept and obey his just decisions for as long as the bishop keeps him in office.*

It is thus seen that a minister who is himself evil does not invalidate either this or any of the other Sacraments, because it is Christ who, by the merits of His passion, gives to each Sacrament its efficacy; and He is good.

**So my Pastor who is dripping with the fruits of the Spirit, having received Apostolic succession authority through Luther, **but more importantly GOD’s WORD given us through the Aposltes is illicitly consecrating a valid Eucharist.

 

[schaick]

What you have failed to do is show us that the universal Church meant many believers with different applications, which appears to be a justification of many denominations. There was ONE ‘universal’, or Catholic, Church. Catholic means universal. The Church is worldwide, as Christ commanded.

If God could protect His truth through the oral tradition of those on the chair of Moses, why can’t He protect His truth through the oral tradition today?

Where is the proof the Bible is indisputably the ‘final authority’?

Where is the proof the Bible is to be interpreted by each and every individual that reads it?

Where it the proof of one faith and many applications of the faith?

It is GOD’s Word - doesn’t need anything to say it is the final measure, rule, authority, etc.

There is no way of knowing if an oral tradition is the actual truth passed down unless it is tested. Tested meaning are fruits of the Spirit the result of following an oral tradition.

The one interpertation of Matthew 7:15-23 is that it is talking about those that prophesy in Jesus’ name, drive out demons and perform miracles.

Different application:
Looking up the definition of Prophet we see that it can also mean a person speaking for GOD by inspiration. It can also mean a person chosen to guide people to GOD which is what our Minister, Pastors and Priests are doing every everyday.

proph•et   
–noun
1.a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2.(in the Old Testament)
a.a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
b.(often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
c.one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
d.a person who practices divination.
3.one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
4.the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
5.a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.
6.a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather prophet; prophets of doom.
7.a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement.

Whether you are in a Church that has a synod, council or assembly, a hierarchy backing the person you have to ask yourself is that person really teaching you the true Gospel?

My Catholic friends had a Priest that was doing some really weird things during the church service. I asked if he somehow eventually tied it into his sermon, there was a message attached. They said no. They complained to the higher ups, he remained in place.

Everytime I met with these friends they complained about this one Priest- went on for a long time, a couple of years. You could see the bad being done to the faith of my friends, it was really weighing them down. I said - attend church at another parish until he can be replaced.

It seems to be very difficult to get through the red tape that has been created in the Catholic Church as if the heirachy is too big. Like big government.

In my Church we had an old Pastor that did not want to stop preaching and a young one that just did not get along with him. It was very rough on our congregation. We approached the higher ups- they tried to iron the situation out couldn’t and replaced the young one with a very easy going man that was willing to work with the older Pastor.

 

[Cinette]

It is GOD’s Word - doesn’t need anything to say it is the final measure, rule, authority, etc.

There is no way of knowing if an oral tradition is the actual truth passed down unless it is tested. Tested meaning are fruits of the Spirit the result of following an oral tradition.If you apply reason you have got to conclude that Oral Tradition gave way to Written Tradition/Scripture - there were no printing presses until about the 1200 (I must check that - I think it was even a couple of centuries after that - can’t recall) There came a time when those inspires holy men had to write the inspired Word.

…

My Catholic friends had a Priest that was doing some really weird things during the church service. I asked if he somehow eventually tied it into his sermon, there was a message attached. They said no. They complained to the higher ups, he remained in place.

Everytime I met with these friends they complained about this one Priest- went on for a long time, a couple of years. You could see the bad being done to the faith of my friends, it was really weighing them down. I said - attend church at another parish until he can be replaced. I had an experience at a Parish where the priest was a fantastic preacher and had a lot of innovative ideas but both my husband and I found him too casual and relaxed - the Holy Spirit became a “she” and I sent him a couple of emails before we changed Parishes - you know Schaick nowadays people are better informed in all spheres - for example doctors can’t just give us an injection and a couple of pills and send us on our way. We read up on conditions on the internet and have informative articles in the media. We demand an explanation. If I had a really weird priest I would go to the bishop and if I got no joy I would go to the Cardinal.

It seems to be very difficult to get through the red tape that has been created in the Catholic Church as if the heirachy is too big. Like big government.Not really.

In my Church we had an old Pastor that did not want to stop preaching and a young one that just did not get along with him. It was very rough on our congregation. We approached the higher ups- they tried to iron the situation out couldn’t and replaced the young one with a very easy going man that was willing to work with the older Pastor.Well the old man should have been put in his place. In the Catholic Church we go to Mass not for the preaching (although that is a good thing) we go for the Eucharist mainly.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is GOD’s Word - doesn’t need anything to say it is the final measure, rule, authority, etc.

God’s word plainly states the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth. It plainly states the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church. It clearly shows Nehemiah 8 as an example of the authority having to explain scriptures, causing the people to understand. It gives a great example of having scriptures, but needing authority to explain them with Acts 8, the eunuch and Philip. Yet it doesn’t need anything to support your view. It only needs everything specifically written if you follow the Catholic faith. Did I sum that up correctly according to your understanding?

There is no way of knowing if an oral tradition is the actual truth passed down unless it is tested. Tested meaning are fruits of the Spirit the result of following an oral tradition.

You realize anything your Pastor preaches, or that you communicate is ‘oral’?

Here is something in my study notes I’d like to share as food for thought.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the “written Torah” (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The “oral law” was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.

The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved

 

[why_me]

I don’t think that the catholic church is hated by very many people. But many people are now disappointed in the catholic church. And this disappointment will continue as long as scandals continue to rock the catholic church.

But the catholic church is not hated. It did make mistakes in the past and hopefully, the catholic hierarchy have learned something from the experience.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My Pastor was chosen by GOD-called. He studied everything set forth by the GOD, Jesus, the Disciples, Paul, the Early Church Fathers - in Hebrew and Greek. He studied at a recognized Seminary- Concordia University system. Did a vicarage under an ordained Pastor, went back to seminary, preached at a few different places-including a jail. Was then called by our congregation.

Then you consider anything preached by this ‘man’ to be infallible?

There is where we will never agree, the Catholic Church is simply a denomination of the universal Church Jesus is building.

It is not a denomination. It is the Church all Christian Churches have roots to, as they all came through that one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Would you care to show us different Churches in the beginning, with slight to great differences in doctrines?

How was scriptures privately interpretated by those in 35AD? Can you give examples? How about 40AD?

Scriptures themselves give great examples of things learned ONLY through the oral tradition.

Christ taught the People to listen to those who sat upon the chair of Moses. How did the people know what Christ was speaking about? The chair of Moses in not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures?

Luke wrote a Gospel, recording the words of Christ. Acts 20:35 tells us of something Christ said. Luke was not an eyewitness to Christ’s life. Luke writes about things spoken before Christ’s birth, the conversation between the Angel and Mary, Elizabeth and Mary, the child Jesus and Mary.

St. Paul also wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

St. Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

Whether one wants to admit it or not, a lot of OUR faith is based on oral tradition.

Christ died, was buried, resurrected and ascended in heaven around approximately 33AD. Christians were persecuted with the penaly of death. There wasn’t a new Testament for some years, with some books written the latter part of the century, Revelations is estimated to have been written around 90 to 107AD, yet the Church not only grew, it flourished…on oral tradition.

Do you think God has no power over man to be able to protect His truth through the oral tradition of the Church, He Himself built?

 

[Cinette]

I don’t think that the catholic church is hated by very many people. But many people are now disappointed in the catholic church. And this disappointment will continue as long as scandals continue to rock the catholic church.

But the catholic church is not hated. It did make mistakes in the past and hopefully, the catholic hierarchy have learned something from the experience.

Although it is really widespread when a Catholic priest, a consecrated man who has to look after the flock does a thing like that it is regarded as more serious and IT IS!.

The Catholic Church is also hated by secularists who are against the Church’s high moral standards and the fact that the Church is not politically correct.

God bless
Cinette:banghead:

 

[Protestant101]

Yes, of course they are also in scripture. Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, and the Sacred Traditions were being practiced and taught for 382 years before the Bible was formed.

Yes, Scripture is indeed a “full compendium” of the faith. Scripture includes “Tradition” not as some sort of 'extra" but as a portion of the same whole. Scripture explains Tradition in two ways. One way God accepts, the other way God abhors. Traditions that are “extras” not included in the Bible, actually are not the kind that God would accept - they would be classed as heresy.

Scripture does not have the qualities and characteristics to weild authority. Only persons have this ability. Trying to force Scripture into a role that was never intended only has the result of making the person doing the forcing into their own authority.

God’s Word is His authority. It has always been so When God speaks; it is done. Check out the creation story for the Bible’s first example of His authority.

It seems clear from your posts that you have very little understanding of Catholicism, and a great deal of prejudice and bias that probably prevents you from learning.

This is a common accusation by Catholics to Protestants. Although seemingly convenient to Catholics who want to “prove” some Protestant “wrong” it is equally likely that most Catholics who say such things also struggle with correct knowledge of their own beliefs. The Catholics that I enjoy study with; and whom I learn things from, are the ones who refrain from such characterizations.

It is true that the Sacred Traditions do function to preserve the mysteries committed to the Church by the Apostles. It is also true that those who have departed from the Church founded by the Apostles have separated themselves from these Teachings. They don’t even realize what they have lost, and many believe the Catholic Church has “added” rather than the Reformers subtracting.

Actually; this is not even close to being true. It is in fact Catholics who have departed from the original faith “once given to the Saints.” As a Protestant; I don’t believe that Catholics have only “added” things to the faith; I see them as both adding or subtracting things as it suits the body of Catholic belief and objectives.

Protestants are not seeking to “add” anything. A true Protestant seeks to restore what was both taken from and added to. A true Protestant accepts the fact that many Catholics are indeed Christians. As a member of this forum for atleast 4 years; I have tried really hard in my own inept ways to show this.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, Scripture is indeed a “full compendium” of the faith. Scripture includes “Tradition” not as some sort of 'extra" but as a portion of the same whole. Scripture explains Tradition in two ways. One way God accepts, the other way God abhors. Traditions that are “extras” not included in the Bible, actually are not the kind that God would accept - they would be classed as heresy.

Where is that in scriptures?

 

[Protestant101]

Where is that in scriptures?

Where is it in Scripture that I am wrong?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where is it in Scripture that I am wrong?

Oh, so when it’s not specifically addressed in scriptures, it can be taken to support only your view?

Where is that in scriptures?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God’s Word is His authority. It has always been so When God speaks; it is done. Check out the creation story for the Bible’s first example of His authority.

God did not ‘speak’ scriptures. He inspired them through the men He chose and appointed over His Church, and those that they appointed.