Why is the Catholic Church hated so much?

[JustaServant]

BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!

1. Tradition, not Scripture, tells us what books belong in the Bible in the first place. The Bible does not tell us what the standards are for determining what is and what is not actually Sacred Scripture. Both the Jews and the early Christians had many works that some purported to be divinely inspired, but it was through Tradition and an action of the Magisterium that determined which ones were truly inspired.
2. St. Paul did not limit his teaching to Scripture:
   “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or by mouth or by letter.” (2Thess 2:15, RSV)
   (Something taught “by mouth” is not, by definition, Scripture)

“What you have learned and received and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.” (Philippians 4:9).
(Obviously St. Paul cannot be referring to Scripture when he says to learn from what is “seen in him”).

1. If God truly wanted the Bible to be the only basis for Christian doctrine, it stands to reason he would have stated that somewhere in the Bible. The various books of the Bible were penned by several different people over a span of several centuries.** If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then one would expect that somewhere along the way this doctrine would have been revealed specifically in Scripture**. Look at all the hundreds of pages and thousands of verses of the prophets alone in the Bible. Wouldn’t God have had just ONE of them say something like, “My revelation will only come in the form of Scripture, so only use Scripture as the basis of your teaching”? If just one single verse in the whole Bible had this, we would all be adherents of Sola Scriptura.
2. The problem is that you are trying to demonstrate the validity of a doctrine that states “Scripture Alone” with a rationalization that is not actually in Scripture. It is not “Scripture & NC’s Rationalization Alone” but “Scripture Alone.” As much as you try to get around it, any credible defense of Sola Scriptura has to follow its own rule.
3. First of all, you presume that the term “God’s Word” is Scripture but not also Sacred Tradition. To Catholics, it is both.
   Secondly, in this quote you try to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with philosophy. But it is not “Scripture and Philosophy Alone,” but rather “Scripture Alone.” Once again, you have to defend this doctrine by its own rules.

And let me ask you this, would you believe in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if I gave you a philosophical but unbiblical argument for it? If not, then why do you think a philosophical but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is credible?

1. If Scripture itself provides an infallible access to God’s mind then why do so many Protestants debate over interpretations of the Bible? Two contradicting interpretations of a Scripture verse cannot both be infallible. Either one is correct and the other is false, or both are false. How does the proposed infallibility of Scripture defend itself against faulty interpretations?

 

[JustaServant]

I. Scripture Alone Disproves “Scripture Alone”
Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15 - those that preached the Gospel to all creation but did not write the Gospel were not less obedient to Jesus, or their teachings less important.

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to “preach,” not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith.

Luke 1:1-4 - Luke acknowledges that the faithful have already received the teachings of Christ, and is writing his Gospel only so that they “realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.” Luke writes to verify the oral tradition they already received.

John 20:30; 21:25 - Jesus did many other things not written in the Scriptures. These have been preserved through the oral apostolic tradition and they are equally a part of the Deposit of Faith.

Acts 8:30-31; Heb. 5:12 - these verses show that we need help in interpreting the Scriptures. We cannot interpret them infallibly on our own. We need divinely appointed leadership within the Church to teach us.

Acts 15:1-14 – Peter resolves the Church’s first doctrinal issue regarding circumcision without referring to Scriptures.

Acts 17:28 – Paul quotes the writings of the pagan poets when he taught at the Aeropagus. Thus, Paul appeals to sources outside of Scripture to teach about God.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Corinth is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul is again appealing to a source outside of Scripture to teach the Corinthians. This disproves Scripture alone.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful to obey apostolic tradition, and not Scripture alone.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. There is nothing ever about obeying Scripture alone.

Col. 4:16 - this verse shows that a prior letter written to Laodicea is equally authoritative but not part of the New Testament canon. Paul once again appeals to a source outside of the Bible to teach about the Word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

continued…

 

[JustaServant]

1 Thess. 3:10 - Paul wants to see the Thessalonians face to face and supply what is lacking. His letter is not enough.

2 Thess. 2:14 - Paul says that God has called us “through our Gospel.” What is the fullness of the Gospel?

2 Thess. 2:15 - the fullness of the Gospel is the apostolic tradition which includes either teaching by word of mouth or by letter. Scripture does not say “letter alone.” The Catholic Church has the fullness of the Christian faith through its rich traditions of Scripture, oral tradition and teaching authority (or Magisterium).

2 Thess 3:6 - Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone (the word “Bible” is not even in the Bible).

1 Tim. 3:14-15 - Paul prefers to speak and not write, and is writing only in the event that he is delayed and cannot be with Timothy.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says apostolic tradition is passed on to future generations, but he says nothing about all apostolic traditions being eventually committed to the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it. Again, this refers to tradition which is found outside of the Bible.

James 4:5 - James even appeals to Scripture outside of the Old Testament canon (“He yearns jealously over the spirit which He has made…”)

2 Peter 1:20 - interpreting Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. Therefore, it must be a matter of “public” interpretation of the Church. The Divine Word needs a Divine Interpreter. Private judgment leads to divisions, and this is why there are 30,000 different Protestant denominations.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - Peter says Paul’s letters are inspired, but not all his letters are in the New Testament canon. See, for example, 1 Cor. 5:9-10; Col. 4:16. Also, Peter’s use of the word “ignorant” means unschooled, which presupposes the requirement of oral apostolic instruction that comes from the Church.

2 Peter 3:16 - the Scriptures are difficult to understand and can be distorted by the ignorant to their destruction. God did not guarantee the Holy Spirit would lead each of us to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this is what Protestants must argue in order to support their doctrine of sola Scriptura. History and countless divisions in Protestantism disprove it.

1 John 4:1 - again, God instructs us to test all things, test all spirits. Notwithstanding what many Protestants argue, God’s Word is not always obvious.

1 Sam. 3:1-9 - for example, the Lord speaks to Samuel, but Samuel doesn’t recognize it is God. The Word of God is not self-attesting.

1 Kings 13:1-32 - in this story, we see that a man can’t discern between God’s word (the commandment “don’t eat”) and a prophet’s erroneous word (that God had rescinded his commandment “don’t eat”). The words of the Bible, in spite of what many Protestants must argue, are not always clear and understandable. This is why there are 30,000 different Protestant churches and one Holy Catholic Church.

Gen. to Rev. - Protestants must admit that knowing what books belong in the Bible is necessary for our salvation. However, because the Bible has no “inspired contents page,” you must look outside the Bible to see how its books were selected. This destroys the sola Scriptura theory. The canon of Scripture is a Revelation from God which is necessary for our salvation, and which comes from outside the Bible. Instead, this Revelation was given by God to the Catholic Church, the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Jack_Bauer]

…

SO why do you not accept or ignore the beliefes and teachings of the early Christians during the days following the lives of the apostles? It is clear that they believe Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. You’re making up your own religion as Protestants do. This believe seems to be based on modern concepts of culture, and rudely ignores the culture of Jesus’ time. It’s kind of like scolding people in the 1800;s for not practicing birth control because they couldn’t afford the kids. During that time they believed any kind of procreation was sinful… that included the Protestants. I wish more people were required to take geography from not only economics, but also historic and culture perspectives. It would clear up a lot of this twisted thinking.

RESPONSE: I ignore 'beliefs/teachings of early Christians…BECAUSE IT’S NOT IN THE BIBLE!!! The BIBLE is the inerrant, infallable WORD OF GOD…not some non-canonical writings.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (straight-forward and easy to understand)
16 ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is **useful **for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work
.

2 Timothy, I believed the same thing you do. Are you Church of Christ?
The New Testament did not exist during that time. Also, whoe put the canon of scripture together. Why didn’t they illuminate that passage if they had a chance to get rid of the belief you support now?

Your arrogance is getting through LOUD and CLEAR! I spent 35 years studying this exact passage trying to understand. Then I learned something that made more sense. Read that passage in its context along with 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The canon of scripture would never have come about without Sacred Tradition.

Where in that scripture does is say that we are only to study the bible and believe only in what the bible tells us?
**
Do you have a library of study aids?**

And Catholics believe what it says. You’re just twisting the meaning of it as most fundamentalists do.

 

[newcreation2009]

I don’t think the Church itself is hated.The number of people who call themselves catholic is growing all the time.
There are men in the heirarchy who have been guilty of sins that have caused revulsion in many. Also, the Church’s active involvement in secular politics has brought it into the temporal world and it has become subject to the slings and arrows that await anyone who joins that fracas.

The Narrow and Wide Gates (Matthew 7:13 & 14)
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

 

[JustaServant]

The Narrow and Wide Gates (Matthew 7:13 & 14)
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

So being a Catholic leads to Hell.
Is that what you are saying?

 

[newcreation2009]

Did you even bother to read any responses?

I do read the responses to my ranting and I have responded, quite a few times. Maybe I’m doing something wrong. I am responding by clicking on the “QUOTE” button. I guess you’ll have to find my responses to GreggAlvarez and others. If there is a better way to respond I would appreciate it if you let me know.

Thanks,
Tim

 

[Jack_Bauer]

So being a Catholic leads to Hell.
Is that what you are saying?

Fundamentalist speak.

I listened to a Church of Christ vs Catholic debate once that had me LOLOTF once during my studying of Catholicism while we were members of the Church of Christ. Notice the carefully stated words. Important. We even had discussion about this during bible classes so that we didn’t confuse people because even “so called Protestants” were nothing more than a made up religious belief sinning against God.

The preacher in the middle of the debate raised his voice and did exactly what this guy is doing with a southern preacher style shake in his voice “Wide is the gate, straight is the path that leads to destruction”.

Here are the debate files ==> churchesofchrist.com/Catholic_Debate.html

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Oh, you’ll need Real Player to listen to it. I highly recommend that everyone on this forum listen to the debate. It deals with the primary reason many of us are on here “authority”.

 

[newcreation2009]

1. Tradition, not Scripture, tells us what books belong in the Bible in the first place. The Bible does not tell us what the standards are for determining what is and what is not actually Sacred Scripture. Both the Jews and the early Christians had many works that some purported to be divinely inspired, but it was through Tradition and an action of the Magisterium that determined which ones were truly inspired.
2. St. Paul did not limit his teaching to Scripture:
   “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or by mouth or by letter.” (2Thess 2:15, RSV)
   (Something taught “by mouth” is not, by definition, Scripture)
   Where does it say that we can ADD to Paul’s traditions?? Paul is an apostle. No one since Paul has seen Him and no one else is an apostle.

“What you have learned and received and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.” (Philippians 4:9).
(Obviously St. Paul cannot be referring to Scripture when he says to learn from what is “seen in him”). Again, Paul was/is an apostle. You might want to investigate when the Catholic church started to impliment their ‘traditions’.

1. If God truly wanted the Bible to be the only basis for Christian doctrine, it stands to reason he would have stated that somewhere in the Bible. The various books of the Bible were penned by several different people over a span of several centuries.** If Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine then one would expect that somewhere along the way this doctrine would have been revealed specifically in Scripture**. Look at all the hundreds of pages and thousands of verses of the prophets alone in the Bible. Wouldn’t God have had just ONE of them say something like, “My revelation will only come in the form of Scripture, so only use Scripture as the basis of your teaching”? If just one single verse in the whole Bible had this, we would all be adherents of Sola Scriptura.
   Read the straight forward 2 Timothy 3:16, 17!! Oh, never mind, here it is…
   16 ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
   17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work
   (So what part of ‘ALL’ is misunderstood?)
2. The problem is that you are trying to demonstrate the validity of a doctrine that states “Scripture Alone” with a rationalization that is not actually in Scripture. It is not “Scripture & NC’s Rationalization Alone” but “Scripture Alone.” As much as you try to get around it, any credible defense of Sola Scriptura has to follow its own rule.
   Here is the ‘RULE’ of Sola Scriptura’…2 Timothy 3: 16, 17
3. First of all, you presume that the term “God’s Word” is Scripture but not also Sacred Tradition. To Catholics, it is both.
   Secondly, in this quote you try to defend the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with philosophy. But it is not “Scripture and Philosophy Alone,” but rather “Scripture Alone.” Once again, you have to defend this doctrine by its own rules.
   Sorry, the ‘rule’ of God, the Almighty, Sovereign God is the only rule I follow. When I die, I will stand before my Creator, by myself, and will be judged by my acknowledging His Son Jesus Christ as my Lord & Savior. I will be judged by my having a RELATIONSHIP with His Son, through His Word.
   Catholic Tradition is Sacred…why?

And let me ask you this, would you believe in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception if I gave you a philosophical but unbiblical argument for it? If not, then why do you think a philosophical but unbiblical argument for the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is credible?
Martin Luther WAS a Catholic priest when He read the Bible, not in Latin, but in a language he understood, and from that time on he concluded the theological conflict which ensued and often been characterized as focusing on the so-called four-fold “alones” of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide, sola Scriptura – salvation is by grace alone, in Christ alone, by faith alone, and all that is necessary for salvation is taught in Scripture alone. So, no, if what you are philosophying is NOT in the Bible, then I can’t, because it doesn’t come directly from God, accept it.

1. If Scripture itself provides an infallible access to God’s mind then why do so many Protestants debate over interpretations of the Bible? Two contradicting interpretations of a Scripture verse cannot both be infallible. Either one is correct and the other is false, or both are false. How does the proposed infallibility of Scripture defend itself against faulty interpretations?

The is only ONE interpretation of the Bible. (The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek documents) There may be many versions, but only ONE interpretation. As a matter of fact, the Catholic church recently rewrote their version of the bible…so what’s a person to do? I’ll tell you: study and investigate how a version of the bible was ‘interpreted’ from the original documents, then weigh which one is the best.

For God’s glory,
Tim

 

[Jack_Bauer]

The is only ONE interpretation of the Bible. (The original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek documents) There may be many versions, but only ONE interpretation. As a matter of fact, the Catholic church recently rewrote their version of the bible…so what’s a person to do? I’ll tell you: study and investigate how a version of the bible was ‘interpreted’ from the original documents, then weigh which one is the best.

For God’s glory,
Tim

Same believe I held. I must have drive people crazy on this forum when I first converted to Catholicism. It took a while to see past some of me erroneous thinking. The only things different is your last meaning of rewriting the newest translation of the bible for Catholics. So are you saying that we all have to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to understand the bible?

 

[KathleenGee]

I studied graduate level linguists and it was an amazing study of how dialects and word usage change, and how they change in different locals.

What is important is getting the apostolic faith passed down to every generation, the message that we are offered salvation and new life through Jesus Christ…just make sure it is in the language we use and understand.

 

[newcreation2009]

2 Timothy, I believed the same thing you do. Are you Church of Christ?
The New Testament did not exist during that time. Also, whoe put the canon of scripture together. Why didn’t they illuminate that passage if they had a chance to get rid of the belief you support now?

Your arrogance is getting through LOUD and CLEAR! I spent 35 years studying this exact passage trying to understand. Then I learned something that made more sense. Read that passage in its context along with 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The canon of scripture would never have come about without Sacred Tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, STAND FIRM and HOLD FAST to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
(Where does it say "change these teachings?) So, 'in context with 2 Tim. 3:16, 17, Sola Scriptura stands.)

Where in that scripture does is say that we are only to study the bible and believe only in what the bible tells us? ** 2 Tim. 3:16 & 2 Thes. 2:15, that’s where!!

Do you have a library of study aids?**

And Catholics believe what it says. You’re just twisting the meaning of it as most fundamentalists do.

Sorry, but these a verses are straight-forward. So who is really doing the twisting of their meaning?

 

[newcreation2009]

Same believe I held. I must have drive people crazy on this forum when I first converted to Catholicism. It took a while to see past some of me erroneous thinking. The only things different is your last meaning of rewriting the newest translation of the bible for Catholics. So are you saying that we all have to learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to understand the bible?

Nope, I’m saying that when you investigate who(which GROUP of people) translated and how the translation was accomplished, then you can make an educated decision on which Bible is closest to the original documents.

Blessings,
Tim

 

[JustaServant]

Nope, I’m saying that when you investigate who(which GROUP of people) translated and how the translation was accomplished, then you can make an educated decision on which Bible is closest to the original documents.

Blessings,
Tim

Um…let me guess.
The King James Version?
Right?

 

[newcreation2009]

So being a Catholic leads to Hell.
Is that what you are saying?

What does God say, you know, via His inerrant, infallable word?
It doesn’t matter what I say, and as a matter of fact, I didn’t say anything.
I simply quoted Scripture.

For God’s glory,
Tim

 

[KathleenGee]

NewCreation …are you now in a anti-Catholic Pentecostal communitiy?

Because non-Catholic Spirit filled people don’t go that far in teaching to hate the Church.

Why did you leave? Did you ever learn your catechism the way you are showing us the bible?

We cannot depend on the Bible, because it is still a book, and yes, there are many translation plus the update to current language use.

The Church did not rely on books of the Bible for a long time. The apostles chose successors they knew who had the apostolic faith…those who send out. Some may have had secretaries.

The Christians, beginning with the Jewish Christians who believed in Jesus, were among those who passed the teachings and church practices by memory.

The ancient peoples of Christianity were just as capable as the Jewish people to pass the faith down orally.

The Catholic faith is actually based on the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ, so we relate to Him more as the Eternal Word. The mind of God that created the universe is Jesus Christ.

A person who is true, sincere, pure, good…is reflecting the good fruits of God. The Church is a living being, united as one.

As St. John Newman pointed out, Peter was given the keys by Christ, for heaven. If you have a key, it fits a particular opening. You put the wrong key in, life on the other side won’t open. The role of the primacy of Peter is to be the sign of unity of all common faith, he is also representing Christ, and that the papacy has the keys to interpret life in faith and morals. Without the pope, we are all bickering and fracturing and destroying the common unity Christ is calling us to.

 

[newcreation2009]

Um…let me guess.
The King James Version?
Right?

Maybe, but if you re-read my response, which YOU probably should do, you’ll see that I say that ‘whenYOU’ do those things, then YOU can make an educated decision.

 

[JustaServant]

What does God say, you know, via His inerrant, infallable word?
It doesn’t matter what I say, and as a matter of fact, I didn’t say anything.
I simply quoted Scripture.

For God’s glory,
Tim

13 “Enter through the Fundamentalist gate. For wide is the Catholic gate and broad is the Catholic road that leads to destruction, and many Catholics enter through it.
14 But small is the** Fundamentalist gate and narrow the fundamentalist **road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Spoken in Yosemite Sam speak:
Saaaaaay, yore plum right rabbit! That’s 'zacly what is sez!!

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Nope, I’m saying that when you investigate who(which GROUP of people) translated and how the translation was accomplished, then you can make an educated decision on which Bible is closest to the original documents.

Blessings,
Tim

So, you’ve done all the research on this subject, learned the languages and now have the expertise to tell us which bible is the right bible to study?

Funny, a man by the name of Buddy Martin, a preacher in the University Church of Christ asked me which bible I was reading from in bible class once, because he went around the room asking us to take turns reading from scripture. He later, outside of class, away from the elders, told me that it is a very accurate translation of the bible. You’re saying my preacher doesn’t know the bible then. How old are you?