Why I Can't Be Catholic

[Sword_Brethren]

Apparently, I’m too stupid to read God’s Word…even though He had it written in man’s language for man to understand…

Act 18:18-31 " And behold a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was returning, sitting in his chariot, and reading Isaias the prophet. And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me?" We need the Church to interpet the Holy Word.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As a nonCatholic Christian, I personally feel so much freedom. I feel happy, full of God, and peaceful. I feel safe and secure in Jesus Christ. Confident and prepared for His coming.

But as a Catholic, I feel scared. I feel agony, fear, anxiety, worry, etc. I feel like I’m dishonoring God by talking to other heavenly creatures.

Is it not right to go with my conscience? Or would it be better for me to live a life in constant fear?

Fear is a lack of Faith.

If one has faith then their is nothing to fear. It is not a matter of being Catholic or not that causes you fear but some lack of Faith.

I have found that placing myself in God’s hands can remove all fear and it does not matter what it is. Even demons are no ffear to me knowing that I am in Christ and Christ is in me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think it is up to you to demonstrate using Scripture that the churches in different cities held different doctrinal views on a par with todays differences such as differences on the Real presence.

Subscribing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The Roman Catholic religion officially began in 325 AD, after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and it became the religion of Rome. A “catholic” (Latin for “Universal”) church was established, which became wed with the State of Rome.

Since all of Christendom as we know it was part of this “Roman Catholic” religion until the so called “Protestant Reformation” (and excluding the great schism) what happened to all these “Other” Christians when the “Roman Catholic” religion took over? And please tell us what changed in 325 AD that divided all of Christianity? Or maybe there was no division, all Christianity died out to this new “Roman Catholic Religion”?

I would be pleased with an answer to any question and exstatic to be shown some histoical evidence.

 

[revert_jen]

The Roman Catholic religion officially began in 325 AD, after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and it became the religion of Rome.

Others are dealing well with the theological issues with this post, but I’d like to mention one historical inaccuracy. Christianity was “legalized” throughout the entire Roman Empire, by Constantine I and his co-emperor Licinius, in 313 with the Edict of Milan, which was a document declaring religious toleration throughout the Roman Empire. This document allowed for the return of confiscated property and provided that “…Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best…”

In 325, when Constantine became sole emperor, he supported the Christian Church (financially–through the spending of tax money–and legally), but did not outlaw other religions (including paganism), and did not, as far as I can tell, ever force anyone to become Christian.

Just trying to add a little more accurate history. Many people have the idea that one day, people were getting thrown to the lions, and the next Christianity became the officially imposed religion of the Roman Empire. (I’m not saying that yankee_drifter believes that, as I don’t know. But others reading this thread may be mistaken in this way.)

–Jen

 

[tassitus]

. . .The Roman Catholic religion officially began in 325 AD, after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity and it became the religion of Rome. A “catholic” (Latin for “Universal”) church was established, which became wed with the State of Rome. The “universal” (instead of local) aspect facilitated an organized, structured hierarchy. It adopted the governing techniques of the Romans. Emperors and kings had much to say about church matters. Eventually, the office of “Pope” (meaning father) - (Matthew 23:9) was established to preside over this universal organization, and the system known as the ”Roman Catholic Church” gradually evolved into what it is today. . .

NOOOOO!!! Yankee Drifter had been “drifting” along just fine, when suddenly the old, canned, and obvious “pasting” starts. At least give your source of the original, as I’ve found the above, word for word, here: blackmoon.com/mikeblack/whoarewe.htm

and here: learnthebible.org/Who%20Are%20Baptists.htm

If this is YOUR original writing, my apologies. If not, I think you were doing better before stealing someone else’s (poor) writing.

Peace all.

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

I’m sorry if my answers are not to your satisfaction, but I have tried to only use the Scriptures as God has final authority in all things and His word is Truth. We need to understand what the Bible means by the word ‘church’. IT IS NOT a building, denomination or organization. ‘Church’ means the “called out ones;” True believers in Christ and these baptized believers are found everywhere, not just in the RCC. This is the the “church” Christ is coming back for.

I asked you if Jesus ever promised infallibility in these churches. Was there one church or many in Paul’s day? Were they local assemblies? Did Jesus ever promise they would always be free of error. You never answered anything I posed to you. Paul tells us the infant church was already having problems and being divided. Some were already falling prey to heresy.

The early Christians in the Book of Acts, searched the Scriptures DAILY to make sure Paul and Silas were teaching Truth. They did not ask their church for confirmation of doctrine. They went straight to God’s Word. We too must do the same.

I’m sorry you have decided to dismiss me so quickly.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

James,

I’m sorry if my answers are not to your satisfaction, but I have tried to only use the Scriptures as God has final authority in all things and His word is Truth.

This is where the problem is. This is a Catholic forum. The Scriptures are a product of the Church. The Church codified the Canon of Holy Scriptures. With out the Church there would be no Bible as we have it today. So that kind of goes against your nebulous idea of what ‘Church’ is.

We are not the authority for interpreting the Bible, the Church is.

 

[JRKH]

James,

I’m sorry if my answers are not to your satisfaction, but I have tried to only use the Scriptures as God has final authority in all things and His word is Truth. We need to understand what the Bible means by the word ‘church’. IT IS NOT a building, denomination or organization. ‘Church’ means the “called out ones;” True believers in Christ and these baptized believers are found everywhere, not just in the RCC. This is the the “church” Christ is coming back for.

I did respond to this on the PM, but will address some of the particulars here.

1. A couple of corrections in definitions. “Church” comes from ecclesia which means a gathering or assembly, or a group with common beliefs. “Saints” means “Called out ones”
2. I appreciate that you are using Scripture. I am using Scripture as well. However there seems to be a bit of a disconnect in our use of Scripture which is why I brought up applying Mt 18:15-18 to resolve our differences. This is Clearly What Christ taught us to do.

Now I will answer your questions below and then ask you to answer mine.

I asked you if Jesus ever promised infallibility in these churches.

Frankly Yes. Christ Founded His Church on the Kepha (Rock) of Simon bar Jonah, whom we call Peter. He gave to Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and the Authority to bind and loose. Later He tells those who have obsitnate disputes to, “…tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. In other words if they refuse to abide by the Church’s decision they are to be kicked out until they repent. This verse is then followed by a reaffirmation of the power to Bind and Loose.
Please note that the term Church is used only Twice in the Gospels, both times by Jesus himself and both times in reference to granting Authority to the Church.
Later Christ Promises to send the Helper who will lead the Apostles (and Church) into “All Truth”.
So - Does Christ Grant “Fallible” Authority or “infallible” Authority”?

Paul later says that Scripture is useful, but that it is The Church which is the pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Was there one church or many in Paul’s day?

Why do you need to ask this? Did Christ say "upon this Rock I will build by Churches??
Christ Founded One Church.

Were they local assemblies?

They were local assemblies fo the same Church. I belong to a local assembly of The One Church. My Parish is part of the Archdiocese which is part of The universal Church Why is this so difficult to understand?

Did Jesus ever promise they would always be free of error.

Doctrianlly the Churches will be free from error, or if error creeps in, will meet in council to prayerfully discern Truth and make teh necessary corrections.

You never answered anything I posed to you. Paul tells us the infant church was already having problems and being divided. Some were already falling prey to heresy.

OK. Now I have answered your questions. If you accept my answers, then I have won my brother, If you do not accept my answers then we need to take it to the next level and invite others to say which of us is correct. If that is not sufficient to convince you, then we must, “Tell It To The Church”.

The early Christians in the Book of Acts, searched the Scriptures DAILY to make sure Paul and Silas were teaching Truth. They did not ask their church for confirmation of doctrine. They went straight to God’s Word. We too must do the same.

Yes and in the Book of Acts we see where Christians from Judea - After Searching Scripture - caused much confusion in the Church at Antioch. These Jewish Christians found in Scripture that those who believed needed to be Circumsized and follow the dietary laws of Mosaic Law. Can you deny that they argued from Scripture on this matter?
Not Even St Paul could resolve the issue from Scripture and get agreement. It was left to the Council in Jerusalem - An Authoritative Church Council to decide the matter.

Of course to use your idea of Independent NT Churches, St Paul could have settled the matter easily by letting the Judaizers set up another antiochian church community requiring circumcision.

I’m sorry you have decided to dismiss me so quickly.

I do not dismiss you my friend, but I would prefer to continue this conversation here on the open forum. That way we have the benefit of “…Two or three witnesses to confirm each fact…”(Mt 18:16)

So to sum up, you and I have both stated our views on the issue of the “Authoritative” Church issue. I have given clear biblical evidence of Church authority. Further evidence would be available in the ECF’s but I have not used them since you prefer to stick with the Bible.
If you do not agree with my arguments above then Christ telss us to submit it to The Church for resolution.
Question: How do you “Tell it To The Church”.

Peace
James

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

The following is what the Holy Scriptures says the NT church looked like. It is not my opinion, but is fully supported by Scripture.

The New Testament church is made up of individual born-again believers who can go directly to God in prayer** without the intercession of any man**. Christ is our only Intercessor and is our High Priest. Hebrews 4:14-16, states that Christ is our High Priest who personally knows our every need. We are to boldly go to the throne of Grace (God the Father), to find help in time of need. In the Jesus’ model prayer, Luke 11:1-4, Christ instructed us to pray to the Father. (Not saints or Mary) All prayer in the Bible is addressed to God the Father. When we pray to God the Father we are praying through Jesus Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit. We address our prayer to the Father because He is the Head of the Trinity.

Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to pray to a “saint” or anyone else but the Father. Christ is our sole Intercessor, no other exists. We are to confess our sins directly to God and personally ask Him for forgiveness (1 John 1:9). The Apostles never worshiped or “venerated” Mary, nor did they ever teach to pray to her for any reason.

In the Old Testament the priest offered sacrifices and interceded for the Children of Israel. Everything he did was a picture of the coming Messiah and Intercessor Christ Jesus. After Christ has come we no longer need the picture or symbol, we have the reality of Christ as Intercessor. Every believer is a priest. Peter said in 1 Peter 2:9:

  "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people,

The NT church has only two ordinances. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are the only two ordinances given to the local church. “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42)

In Hebrews 11, the Old Testament saints are presented as being saved because of their faith in what God told them to do. They trusted God and obeyed. The Old Testament sacrifices were understood as being a picture that was symbolic of looking forward till the day the Messiah would come and make atonement for sin. The Holy Scriptures knows nothing of infant baptism. Only those who trusted in Christ were baptized. An infant can not understand and receive the Gospel by believing.

History records that all churches practiced immersion until about 250 AD. After that time, for the sake of convenience at a time of sickness, pouring/sprinkling type baptism was practiced. Once allowed, others began to ask for sprinkling, including the elderly and later on it was allowed for any who asked for it. The RCC did not make sprinkling its mode of baptism until 1311. Those who sprinkle/pour (and there are some protestant churches who do this as well) do so as a means of convenience and ignore the biblical teaching of the mode of baptism.

Concerning the Eucharist, (Which in the NT was usually a common meal when they met in homes) Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper the night before He died. (Matt. 26:26-30) The Lord’s Supper was a memorial act for believers. It was given to bring to remembrance, Christ’s sufferings and death for our sins (1 Corinthians 11:26). When an assembly takes the Lord’s Supper they show or proclaim their belief in Christ’s death for the remission of sin, looking forward to the day when Christ will return.

The Lord’s Supper is only for believers. It is mockery for an unbeliever to take the Lord’s Supper. An unbeliever has not believed or received Christ as their Savior and thus has no part in salvation. In verse 28, a person is admonished to examine himself before he takes the Lord’s Supper. It warns that one who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. The Lord’s Supper is a picture of Christ’s suffering and death for our sin. For a man to take the Supper and not receive Christ, is blatant sin.

Hebrews 9:25-28, and 10:11-18, tells us that Christ is no more offered in sacrifice. His redemptive work was completed when he cried: “It is finished.” Heb. 1:3 tells us that Jesus by Himself has effected man’s purgation from sin. So there is no purification after death. God has ordained that man’s cleansing from sin should be made with blood. This was true in the OT and is still God’s manner of purification from sin in the NT as well as the end of the age. The blood of a lamb was shed for man’s sin in the OT days. The blood of the perfect Lamb of God cleanses man from all sin today.

As for binding and loosing, it was not given by Christ to Peter alone. In Matt 18, we read that all the disciples were given this authority. Jesus said where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in your midst. The Apostles never spoke or wrote of anyone other than Christ as the cornerstone on which the church would be built. Even the OT believers looked to the Lord as the Rock.(1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:2, 32) Binding and loosing was given to all the apostles, (Matt 18:18) and has been given to the church (The body of believers) today as well.

Yes, the “called-out ones” are the saints—that is, Christians. The “called out ones” before the resurrection of Christ were justified (saved) by faith in the completed work of Christ that was yet to be performed. Abraham was saved by faith alone. Rom. 4:3-6, 4:23

The “called out ones” after the resurrection of Jesus are justified (saved) by faith in the exact same completed work of Christ that has now been performed. Eph.2:8

James, I did not give my opinions, but referred solely to the authority of Divine Scripture. I challenge you to do the same and qualify all your claims and statements. One’s personal view or explanation are meaningless. Did Jesus use tradition when he rebuked satan three times, or the Scriptures? What did Christ say to the pharisees who were the interpreters of the law and the Sadducees whenever they resorted to tradition? Christ told them they erred, not knowing the Scriptures. He said they nullified God’s word making it of no effect with their traditions. Matt 15:6, Matt 22:9, Mark 7:3
.

  .

.

 

[TristanCross]

Well, as you said, the OT was a picture of things to come. And in the OT, the mother of the King interceded on behalf of the people. Christ is the King, who is the mother?

 

[JRKH]

James,

The following is what the Holy Scriptures says the NT church looked like. It is not my opinion, but is fully supported by Scripture.

I hope that, contained in the informatin below is an answer to my question posed earlier.

The New Testament church is made up of individual born-again believers who can go directly to God in prayer** without the intercession of any man**. Christ is our only Intercessor and is our High Priest. Hebrews 4:14-16, states that Christ is our High Priest who personally knows our every need. We are to boldly go to the throne of Grace (God the Father), to find help in time of need. In the Jesus’ model prayer, Luke 11:1-4, Christ instructed us to pray to the Father. (Not saints or Mary) All prayer in the Bible is addressed to God the Father. When we pray to God the Father we are praying through Jesus Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit. We address our prayer to the Father because He is the Head of the Trinity.

I personally don’t see anything in this that 1) contradicts Catholic Teaching, or 2) proves that the NT churches were each totally independant.

Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to pray to a “saint” or anyone else but the Father. Christ is our sole Intercessor, no other exists. We are to confess our sins directly to God and personally ask Him for forgiveness (1 John 1:9). The Apostles never worshiped or “venerated” Mary, nor did they ever teach to pray to her for any reason.

Just so you are aware, there is NO Catholic Doctrine that requires one to pray to Mary or any Saint. Such prayers are encouraged and are common, but are not required. Therefore if a Catholic is more comfortable praying straight to The Father, there is no objection to this. I myself feel this way. The vast majority of my prayers begin with “Heavenly Father…”
The one comment I will make as regards prayers to the saints is that we know that there are saints in heaven since Christ himself says that God is a God of the living and not of the dead, and, at the transfiguration, Jesus was seen with Moses and Elijah. We ask for prayer from the Saints just as we would ask for prayers from a frined. You yourself have offered to pray for me and my wife, may and the saints do the same thing.

In the Old Testament the priest offered sacrifices and interceded for the Children of Israel. Everything he did was a picture of the coming Messiah and Intercessor Christ Jesus. After Christ has come we no longer need the picture or symbol, we have the reality of Christ as Intercessor. Every believer is a priest. Peter said in 1 Peter 2:9:

  "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. . . But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people,

Again I see no problem in what you say here conflcting with Catholic Teaching. We do not worship any pictures or symbols but the living presence of God and His Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The NT church has only two ordinances. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They are the only two ordinances given to the local church. “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42)

In Hebrews 11, the Old Testament saints are presented as being saved because of their faith in what God told them to do. They trusted God and obeyed. The Old Testament sacrifices were understood as being a picture that was symbolic of looking forward till the day the Messiah would come and make atonement for sin. The Holy Scriptures knows nothing of infant baptism. Only those who trusted in Christ were baptized. An infant can not understand and receive the Gospel by believing.

History records that all churches practiced immersion until about 250 AD. After that time, for the sake of convenience at a time of sickness, pouring/sprinkling type baptism was practiced. Once allowed, others began to ask for sprinkling, including the elderly and later on it was allowed for any who asked for it. The RCC did not make sprinkling its mode of baptism until 1311. Those who sprinkle/pour (and there are some protestant churches who do this as well) do so as a means of convenience and ignore the biblical teaching of the mode of baptism.

Concerning the Eucharist, (Which in the NT was usually a common meal when they met in homes) Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper the night before He died. (Matt. 26:26-30) The Lord’s Supper was a memorial act for believers. It was given to bring to remembrance, Christ’s sufferings and death for our sins (1 Corinthians 11:26). When an assembly takes the Lord’s Supper they show or proclaim their belief in Christ’s death for the remission of sin, looking forward to the day when Christ will return.

The Lord’s Supper is only for believers. It is mockery for an unbeliever to take the Lord’s Supper. An unbeliever has not believed or received Christ as their Savior and thus has no part in salvation. In verse 28, a person is admonished to examine himself before he takes the Lord’s Supper. It warns that one who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. The Lord’s Supper is a picture of Christ’s suffering and death for our sin. For a man to take the Supper and not receive Christ, is blatant sin.

Hebrews 9:25-28, and 10:11-18, tells us that Christ is no more offered in sacrifice. His redemptive work was completed when he cried: “It is finished.” Heb. 1:3 tells us that Jesus by Himself has effected man’s purgation from sin. So there is no purification after death. God has ordained that man’s cleansing from sin should be made with blood. This was true in the OT and is still God’s manner of purification from sin in the NT as well as the end of the age. The blood of a lamb was shed for man’s sin in the OT days. The blood of the perfect Lamb of God cleanses man from all sin today.

I will have to allow others to address the issue of the sacraments. Particularly as this is a seperate issue from the one of whether the NT Church communities were independant or not.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

As for binding and loosing, it was not given by Christ to Peter alone. In Matt 18, we read that all the disciples were given this authority. Jesus said where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in your midst. The Apostles never spoke or wrote of anyone other than Christ as the cornerstone on which the church would be built. Even the OT believers looked to the Lord as the Rock.(1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:2, 32) Binding and loosing was given to all the apostles, (Matt 18:18) and has been given to the church (The body of believers) today as well.

You did not answer my Question about this though. In giving such authority to bind and loose, does Jesus give fallible or infallible authority???

Yes, the “called-out ones” are the saints—that is, Christians. The “called out ones” before the resurrection of Christ were justified (saved) by faith in the completed work of Christ that was yet to be performed. Abraham was saved by faith alone. Rom. 4:3-6, 4:23

The “called out ones” after the resurrection of Jesus are justified (saved) by faith in the exact same completed work of Christ that has now been performed. Eph.2:8

The Catholic Church agrees. We are saved by faith through Grace. None of which is ours by right but is a free Gift of God to us.

James, I did not give my opinions, but referred solely to the authority of Divine Scripture. I challenge you to do the same and qualify all your claims and statements.

I to have used scripture to qualify my statements.

One’s personal view or explanation are meaningless.

Ones personal views may be meaningless but the guidance of the Holy Spirit is Not.
So - You believe that your Spirit Guided understanding of Scripture points to independant NT churches and I believe my Spirit Guided understanding of Scripture points to a single authoritative Church.
How do we dicern which is right?

Did Jesus use tradition when he rebuked satan three times, or the Scriptures?

Did Satan use Tradition to tempt Christ or did he use Scriptures?

What did Christ say to the pharisees who were the interpreters of the law and the Sadducees whenever they resorted to tradition? Christ told them they erred, not knowing the Scriptures. He said they nullified God’s word making it of no effect with their traditions. Matt 15:6, Matt 22:9, Mark 7:3

And Yet what did Jesus tell His disciples to do about obeying the pharasees?
1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
Yes, Jesus rebuked the teachers for teaching poorly. Yet he told, even His Own Diciples to obey those teachers. Even though the Teachers themselves were sinful. This is yet another point for the visible and authoritative Church.
Christ holds that those who are teachers and in positions of authority are to be obeyed. Not emulated but obeyed. He also holds those teachers to a higher and stricter judgement.

Once again we have The Church recieving Authority from Christ in Mt 16:18-19 and 18. We See Jesus supporting such divinely given authority in Mt 18: 15-18 and in Mt 23:1-3.

This is how Christ set up His Church, and it is fully supported by Scripture.

All this arguing is tiring. Why can’t we just do what Christ told us to do and submit our differences to “The Church” for resolution?

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

At the Council of Trent, the declarations of which are still in force today, the RCC condemned the doctrine of faith alone and grace alone.

“If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (6th Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

“If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

Justification by faith alone was also denied at Vatican II called by pope John Paul XXIII.

"Christ also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. … They receive the spirit of adoption as sons”

“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners.”

The Roman Catholic gospel is a combination of faith plus works, grace plus sacraments. which redefines grace to include works and confuses justification with sanctification. It views justification not as a once-for-all declaration whereby the sinner is declared righteous before God and is granted eternal life as the unmerited gift of God, but as a process whereby the sinner is gradually saved through participation in the sacraments. There is no eternal security here because salvation depends partially upon a man’s works.

By the doctrine of the Mass, “the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated” and “the work of our redemption is carried out” (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

There in nothing in Scripture of Christ promising infallibility to men or that His church could never go into error and is preserved from error. There are many passages in the NT which reveal that the opposite is true. Please carefully examine the following passages: Acts 20: 28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Thess. 2:3-11.

It says there are and will be false prophets and teachers. There was to come a great falling away from the Truth. In Acts 20 we learn that perverse things would come from the bishops of the church. Peter said (2 Pet. 2) that false teachers would arise among you (working from within) and there would be many who would follow them. Paul tell us (2 Thess. 2) that the apostasy was already underway, “for the mystery of iniquity is already at work…” (Vs 7). It started in Paul’s day and was to continue until the second coming of Christ. He added, “…Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (Vs 8).

How do you harmonize that with the RCC teaching of infallibility and preservation from error? In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 we read that the departing group from the faith forbade marriages and commanded the abstaining from meat.

Read Revelations chapter 2 and 3 where it mentions that there are churches (plural) of Christ. These churches were indeed local assemblies. The apostles looked upon each local church as a church of Christ, not a world-wide denomination. (Rom 16:16, 1 Thes. 2:14, 2 Thes. 1:4)

Romans 16:16 has Paul saying: "The churches of Christ salute you."

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There in nothing in Scripture

I have said this before but now I will ask you.

You are aware that this is a Catholic forum and that as Catholics we have more than just Holy Scipture. We are not a Bible only Church.

 

[JRKH]

James,

There in nothing in Scripture of Christ promising infallibility to men or that His church could never go into error and is preserved from error. There are many passages in the NT which reveal that the opposite is true. Please carefully examine the following passages: Acts 20: 28-30; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Thess. 2:3-11.

It says there are and will be false prophets and teachers. There was to come a great falling away from the Truth. In Acts 20 we learn that perverse things would come from the bishops of the church. Peter said (2 Pet. 2) that false teachers would arise among you (working from within) and there would be many who would follow them. Paul tell us (2 Thess. 2) that the apostasy was already underway, “for the mystery of iniquity is already at work…” (Vs 7). It started in Paul’s day and was to continue until the second coming of Christ. He added, “…Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the brightness of his coming.” (Vs 8).

How do you harmonize that with the RCC teaching of infallibility and preservation from error? In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 we read that the departing group from the faith forbade marriages and commanded the abstaining from meat.

you point out many places where The Early Church faced issues of heresy and apostacy. This is good to see. However, there is a disconnect between what you see written and the conclusion you come to. You believe that tis the Catholic Church which is in error. That it is we Catholics who departed from truth and that you are teh one who is correct. I/we of course disagree with this assessment.
I have no problem harmonizing the Scriptures you posted with the Idea of the Teachings of theChurch being preserved from error. No problem at all. For it is the consistant teaching of “The Church”, that pillar and bullwark of faith, that assures that, when new or unusual ideas/interpretations come up, such new items are subjected to much discussion and prayerful discernment before a decision is passed on whether such things are correct or not.
I need only look at the great numbers of NCC communities with their varying Doctrines and denial of the Real presence etc to see that, without an authoritaive body to discern Truth from Lie, without an authoritative body to preserve and tech said truth, the result is chaos.

Read Revelations chapter 2 and 3 where it mentions that there are churches (plural) of Christ. These churches were indeed local assemblies. The apostles looked upon each local church as a church of Christ, not a world-wide denomination. (Rom 16:16, 1 Thes. 2:14, 2 Thes. 1:4)

Romans 16:16 has Paul saying: "The churches of Christ salute you."

Read Mt 16:18 where Jesus founds a “Church” (Singular)
Read Mt 18:17 Where Jesus tell uswe are to “Tell it to The Church”(Singular)
Read Jn 17: 20-23 Where Jesus Prays:
20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will R98 believe in Me through their word; 21** that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You;** that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

There can be many assemblies but only One Mind of Christ. Only One Body, though many parts. The Mind of Christ, which is one with the Father cannot teach multiple Truths. The Universal Church of Christ is large with many different rites. The Universal Church of Christ is also an organization that contains the rich history of Doctrinal teaching from the Apostles to today.

I gladly embrace the Bible and all that it teaches, as does the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That includes the parts that say The Church is the Pillar and Bulwark fo Truth, and that when we disagree on doctrine we should"Tell it to The Church".

Erik, I beleive you to be an honest disciple of Christ in the manner which it has ben given you to understand. I pray that as you progress on your journey, you will come to see the Truth in what I have been trying to convey to you. This will occur in God’s good time and not mine.
I have placed before you the Truth of the Church’s position. I have even offered to submit my will and opinion to the Good offices of “The Church” as described by Christ in the Mt 18:17. I have asked you to likewise submit, even though I know that you are unable to comply. I have done this in order that you might someday consider what Christ commanded here, and how, even from the earliest times, His Church was given His authority.

I am no great scholar. Nor am I a great debator, or writer, I can only try to convey, as best I can, that which was given to my by discernment in the Holy Spirit. That Christ Founded One Community - One Church. That he gave said Church Authority - His Authority. That, because He promised said Church would not fail, that Church still exists today. That, through the authoritative offices of That Church, we have the Bible (canonized in ca 400 AD), common doctrine (such as the trinity) and a pillar and bulwark to protect and defend The Truth.

If anything I ahve written has helped you understand better, then I am glad and give praise and Glory ot God for giving me the right words. If I have not, then I confess my failure to Almighty God and ask His forgiveness for my weakness and ignorance.

Peace
James

 

[yankee_drifter]

James,

The Scriptures are clear that no church is infallible. The reason being because man is fallible and makes mistakes. The apostle Peter made mistakes. Even Paul had to rebuke and correct him. The churches in the NT had problems and experienced many things. Either divisions, fallen or false teachers, bishops, prophets, etc. The NT churches had some form of apostasy. Individuals apostatized. Some who had departed were enforcing the abstaining from meat and forbidding marriage.

When Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church it does not mean He promised to preserve it from error, but rather that Hades (satan) shall not prevent Him from building His church. A ‘gate’ means to keep something in or out. There were many churches usually named after the city. The RCC did not form and organize until after 300 AD when Constantine legalized Christianity and it was the religion of Rome. Buildings were erected and the church of Rome was married to the state where the emperor and kings had just as much to say about church matters. What happened to the Jewish-Christians from the early churches? There is no evidence that they all became roman catholic. History shows that there were many bands of baptized Christians everywhere who gathered to break bread and worship.

We are taught in God’s holy Word that we must follow the laws of the Lord without change or variation (Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19). When we follow the traditions and doctrines of men, our religion becomes vain (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:8; Titus 1:13-14). The

The following Catholic official openly acknowledges that the Catholic Church changed immersion to pouring simply because it was more convenient:

“Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times.” (New Interpretation of the Mass, p. 120).

“Catholics admit that immersion brings out more fully the meaning of the sacrament, and that for twelve centuries it was the common practice.” (Question Box, p. 240).

“Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years.” (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57).

“The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring.” (Our Faith and the Facts, p. 399).

The book, My Catholic Faith, on page 270 gives the present day practice of the Catholic Church on baptism. It says, "How would you give baptism? I would give baptism by pouring ordinary water on the forehead of the person to be baptized

“The present mode of pouring arose from the many** inconveniences** connected with immersion, frequent mention of which are made in the writings of the early Church Fathers.” (Question Box, p. 366).

How did God deal with people who changed His commands without His specific instructions to do so?

In Lev.10 we read of two priests who thought they would do what was convenient and “offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not”. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord"

1 Kings 12:28-33 tells us The wicked king Jeroboam made things convenient for the people by setting up idols and saying, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”

To please God we must do exactly as He commanded and not that which might be more suitable or convenient to us. No one man or group of men have a right to change the law of God. God commanded a burial in water, and this is what must be done. Christ Himself was immersed as the Scriptures tell us He came up out of the water.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

James,

The Scriptures are clear that no church is infallible.

Clear to who?

 

[JRKH]

James,

The Scriptures are clear that no church is infallible. The reason being because man is fallible and makes mistakes. The apostle Peter made mistakes. Even Paul had to rebuke and correct him. The churches in the NT had problems and experienced many things. Either divisions, fallen or false teachers, bishops, prophets, etc. The NT churches had some form of apostasy. Individuals apostatized. Some who had departed were enforcing the abstaining from meat and forbidding marriage.

You are quite right that the Early Church had troubles with determining correct teaching. What you fail to understand, because of your fixation that the Catholic Church cannot be right, is that it was the unified, universal, Apostolic Church which resolved the various issues and did so for the universal church.
Certainly there were fallen teachers, bishops etc. Not one Catholic that I know would ever say otherwise - But the sin of individuals, even many individuals, does not make the entire Church apostate, nor does it make the teaching of that Church in error.
How was it for instance that the gnostics, who believed that All Matter is evil and that Jesus could not have been truly human because he could not have been encased in “evil clay”, were opposed, ? How about the Arians who denied the Divine nature of Jesus, - how were they opposed? These things occurred long before the canon ofthe Bible was determined by The Church.

When Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church it does not mean He promised to preserve it from error, but rather that Hades (satan) shall not prevent Him from building His church. A ‘gate’ means to keep something in or out. There were many churches usually named after the city. The RCC did not form and organize until after 300 AD when Constantine legalized Christianity and it was the religion of Rome. Buildings were erected and the church of Rome was married to the state where the emperor and kings had just as much to say about church matters. What happened to the Jewish-Christians from the early churches? There is no evidence that they all became roman catholic. History shows that there were many bands of baptized Christians everywhere who gathered to break bread and worship.

It is interesting to note that, while you say that you want to have a conversation with give and take, you never seem to address and answer points I place in my posts, you just seem to want to respout the same misinformation. The Catholic Church did not form under Constatine. The first use of the term "Catholic Church was by St Clement in His letter to the Corinthians at around 95 AD. This was before the last Apostle, ST John had died.

On another point, since you believe that the Catholic Church “Formed” around 300 under Constantine, and the Catholic Church, indeed any church, was not preserved from error, how is it that you accept the Bible??
The Bible canon was definitively set at the Councils of the Catholic Church at Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s AD. This same canon was confirmed and reconfirmed 7 times by 7 different councils, all before the time of Luther and the Reformation.
If the Catholic Church can err, then the canon, as set by the Catholic Church cannot be trusted to be accurate.

We are taught in God’s holy Word that we must follow the laws of the Lord without change or variation (Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19). When we follow the traditions and doctrines of men, our religion becomes vain (Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:8; Titus 1:13-14). The

(Snip)

**To please God we must do exactly as He commanded and not that which might be more suitable or convenient to us. No one man or group of men have a right to change the law of God. **God commanded a burial in water, and this is what must be done. Christ Himself was immersed as the Scriptures tell us He came up out of the water.

Christ also allowed his disciples to disobey the Law by picking and eating from the fields on the sabbath. When confronted by the Jewish teachers on this matter he admonished them that they were too worried about the “letter” of the Law and not enough about the spirit and intent of the Law.

You will argue yourself silly about whether the early Church was unified or not, and you will argue whether about the correct way to Baptize, and whether works are needed to demonstrate faith, and a whole host of other things, but you will, and have right here in this discussion, firmly and completely ignore Christ’s Command to “Tell it To The Church” and then abide by the Church’s decision.
You will say above that no man, or group of men has the right to change God’s commands, but then you accept the 66 book canon of the Bible even though the canon set and used for the previous 1000 years had been set at 72 books.
You reject the biblical and historical authority of The Church, and then accept the entirely unbiblical “Man Made Tradition” of Sola Scriptura.
You reject the clearly biblical authority of The Catholic Church, and then accept the Bible, a book you recieved through the Spirit Guided offices of the Catholic Church which assembled it, translated it, Hand copied it, distributed it, taught from it, defended it, and protected it, for 1000 years.

At this point I know I can say nothing to you that will make an impression or soften your heart towards the Catholic Church or to Catholics. I can only pray that at some point, your heart will open to the fullness of truth, and that you will find that you WILL be able to accept Christ’s command to “Tell it To The Church”

Peace
James