Posted on 06/13/2015 4:35:19 AM PDT by Mercat
Of the 33576 Protestant sects in USA which one is the ONE TRUE sect representing the CHURCH?
When catholics continue to repeat this many times debunked statistic it shows their ignorance of the topic.
Rather than question the claimed number of Protestant sects, wouldn’t a better response be to reject the premise of the question? Whether it numbers in the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands, there are a large number of Protestant sects. While there may be exceptions, I believe that most of these sects don’t claim that their sect is the one true church and the only means to salvation. My Mom, a devout Methodist, accepted members of other Christian denominations as sisters and brothers in Christ. Same with my sister who is a Methodist and my daughter who is a member of a Christian church.
Recorded by men, but the words of God.
There was SCRIPTURE.
Why isn’t God’s word enough?
What is lacking, what did the Holy Spirit leave out, that is so necessary for salvation, that the Catholic church feels the need to add to it?
First of all I will say that I do agree with some of the things the Catholics believe in.
But the motive here seems to be to convince people that it is the Church who has the authority and not the Bible since they are where the Bible came from.
If the scriptures did in fact come from the Catholic Church why would they not believe in scripture alone?
It is like Hank Williams said, (I was the one who wrote the song, I know how it goes)
But the Catholic Church did not write the song they just put all of the songs in to a book.
And it is likely God had to press hard on them to get it done.
If they are the successors of St Peter why do they make the whole thing about something Peter never said one word about?
Why would they go to Pauls teaching when Paul mostly showed disrespect for St Peter?
Wonder what St Peter thinks about that?
Paul is obviously where the fathers of the Church came from and he is the only apostle who said anything about the Lords supper.
Don`t get me wrong here as I know nothing but just got a lot of questions about the teachings of the Church.
Fixed the title for you.
“But the motive here seems to be to convince people that it is the Church who has the authority and not the Bible since they are where the Bible came from.”
That’s not my motive. God the Father is the authority, working through Jesus in the Holy Spirit.
“If the scriptures did in fact come from the Catholic Church why would they not believe in scripture alone?”
There’s a misconception that the Catholic Church does not have much to do with scripture aka the Bible. Not so. The Bible is the primary source of our faith. But one of Dr. Hensley’s points is that unless we have every Christian be his own pope, there is usually someone who is telling us what the passages in the Bible mean. There have been several posts on this thread which purport to tell me what such and such passage says. I prefer to stick with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. If something I learn there seems out of whack then I research it further and pray about it. I don’t just make up a new interpretation and call it the Church of the Mercat.
“It is like Hank Williams said, (I was the one who wrote the song, I know how it goes)” I love that quote. My son is a singer songwriter. And you’re right - this is a song and a dance and right now I’m reading about the joy of the creation.
“But the Catholic Church did not write the song they just put all of the songs in to a book.” There were lots of chapters that got left out. Then 1500 years later, Martin Luther excluded some more chapters. I hesitate to begin a narration about the Sacraments but it is the Bible, the Magistarium, and the Sacraments that hold me in my faith.
“And it is likely God had to press hard on them to get it done.” He had to throw Paul off of his horse and drag Peter across the country to eat with the gentiles. Yup. And it doesn’t sound like John had it very easy.
“If they are the successors of St Peter why do they make the whole thing about something Peter never said one word about?” I’m not sure I understand the question. Peter said a lot. Some of it was written down, by either him or others. I guess your question is wouldn’t they have assumed a lot of dissension in the future and there fore why didn’t they write out a more specific list of rules? I have read some of the early Church fathers, the children and grandchildren so to speak of the Apostles. They said, and wrote, a lot. Until I get a chance to read it all myself I’ll trust in the Church to guide me.
“Why would they go to Pauls teaching when Paul mostly showed disrespect for St Peter?” I don’t see that in the Bible. And I don’t understand the question.
“Wonder what St Peter thinks about that?” I love St. Peter. He’s so human and impulsive and full of love. When I meditate on the passion I have to think that the betrayal by Peter was more painful to Jesus than the lashes on his back.
“Paul is obviously where the fathers of the Church came from and he is the only apostle who said anything about the Lords supper.” Well, so did the Lord. The Last Supper is, I believe, a part of all four Gospels. I think it’s also in the Acts which were written by Luke (not an apostle). And again, lots of discussion of the Eucharist among the early fathers.
“Don`t get me wrong here as I know nothing but just got a lot of questions about the teachings of the Church.”
Great questions. Thanks for posting.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
Holy Tradition is also God’s word spoken by one person to another.
First of all I really appreciate you attempting to answer my questions.
I will not question your faith as I have no doubt it is as safe as mine but I believe if all scripture comes from God then God is also the one who overseen the bringing of the scriptures together to what is called the Bible.
So I do not question the fact that many writings were left out.
you wrote
There have been several posts on this thread which purport to tell me what such and such passage says. I prefer to stick with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.>>>>>>
I have no problem with that but I also believe the Bible was brought to us so we would not have to take any ones word for it, other wise what would be the point if it is really from God?
And if it is not then we are all lost either way.
You wrote
“Why would they go to Pauls teaching when Paul mostly showed disrespect for St Peter?” I don’t see that in the Bible. And I don’t understand the question.
Ok, just to be more specific Paul accused peter of leaving the Gentiles and eating with the Jews and he told the Galatians that he told Paul in front of every one, Gal 2:14
Jesus says
Mathew 18
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
Paul told every one which shows lack of respect, why would he tell this to the Galatians unless he was trying to give Peter a bad reputation?
I believe the protestants will jump onto this last one like ugly on an ape and save you the trouble.
Show us where Jesus taught us to accept extra-Biblical revelation.
Revelation outside Scripture.
What is it that God neglected to include in Scripture that is so critical for us to know?
I don’t think the problem Papists have is really with the concept of sola scriptura, but more to do with the fact that their doctrines directly contradict the words of the scripture. The fight against sola scriptura, therefore, is just a means to discard the Bible for theological consideration.
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
I find the label “papist” offensive. Do you use especially to offend?
I also find the claim that the Reformation brought “theological chaos” pretty offensive. Buck up if you wanna post in the religious forum.
What you said is correct. I have told people that too.
You belive in Scripture, correct?
Then why don't you believe this?
John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.
IOW, there is an unlimited amount of "oral" doctrine. But the text only reports on the deeds of Christ, not the teachings of Christ.
“Actions speak louder than words; let your words teach and your actions speak.” - sermon by St. Anthony
Precisely.
The real offense of Roman Catholicism is against the Scriptures.
They claim authoritative interpretation to justify their perversion of what Scripture actually says.
And they claim extra-biblical authority to add to what Scripture says.
So tired of this. Just back up a chapter to John 20.
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
So the scriptures don't record everything, but they record enough for belief and salvation What value are the things not recorded? More belief? More salvation? Please. This is so tired.
Just because Jesus did something that wasn't recorded means nothing. If you believe otherwise, why? It's not because of the scriptures. They contain enough for belief and salvation, and they put no value on things not recorded. It's not because of tradition. I do not know of a single action of Jesus that isn't in the scriptures, but is part of tradition that would make a hill of beans of difference.
It's a fun poke to point to John 20 and 21, but it signifies nothing. It's really just sad and proves that context doesn't matter to Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.