Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
You are always Catholic if you are a baptized Catholic. That indelible mark is still on your soul. All you need to do is sit down with a priest and get your questions answered. In other words, we invite you back.
So the authority of the Catholic church is dependent on Scripture to support it?
And Catholics argue against the absolute authority of Scripture and then appeal to it to back up many of their doctrines.
That’s called *hypocrisy*.
**When I was Catholic. I firmly believed in traditions, ancient Roman civilization accretions and myths of the last 2000 years.**
This is NOT Holy Tradition. Tradition is the truth handed down from person to person, face to face. From Jesus Christ to the Apostles, to the Early Church Fathers.
The Apostles and Early Church Fathers wrote most of this down. Try reading it sometime.
“Peter was the first Pope.”
And how do you know this, authoritatively.
How do you know Pete as first Pope isn’t just a myth - even if you have his bones?
You'd have to give me a specific example of a conflict between the three. But certainly there exist, at the very least, apparent contradictions that require clarification.
So, from a logical perspective, the Church is the ultimate Authority since, without the Church to write, preserve and canonize Scripture, or to preserve and recognize Apostolic Tradition, the other two pillars of Christian teaching authority would be thrown into doubt.
We also have the words of Jesus.
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.Keep in mind that Jesus could have said, "take it to Me." But he said, take it "to the church." So the Church must teach with equal Authority to that of Christ, even though the Church does not possess the entire Mind of Christ. But when the Church teaches definitively, It teaches with the Authority of Christ.
Other logical conclusions follow. Jesus could not have been speaking of an invisible church, since it's impossible for an invisible church to arbitrate disputes.
This church must also possess a unified, non-contradictory body of doctrine. Otherwise, It could not settle doctrinal disputes, such as, what constitutes a sin or "fault."
Five verses after the verse you cite (Matthew 16:18), Christ refers to Peter as Satan, not on the side of God but of men (Matthew 16:23). Christ would not build His church on a foundation on the shifting sand of human frailty.
Jesus Christ was the Rock on which the Church was built as the Chief Cornerstone of Ephesians 2:10, not Peter.
But don’t take my word for it — take Peter’s, in 1 Peter 2:7 (”the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner”).
"And how do you know the historical record is an accurate and authoritative basis for the Church’s claim?"
It's a matter of pure reliable history:
Testimony of the Evangelists - by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Google is your friend.
Search: "When was the Catholic Church founded?"
We all sin, right?
“It’s a matter of pure reliable history:”
I am not asking when or if the Catholic Church was founded, I am asking what the Catholic Church basis it’s claim to spiritual authority on.
The Catholic Church claims a significant amount of spiritual authority... that they are God’s sole representatives on the earth and hold the keys to mankind’s eternal destiny, & etc. These are no small claims.
By what authority to they make these claims?
What do they base their claims upon?
Because all of what you posted is adding too the Scripture, its outside the Scripture and adds to what was in the scripture.
In post #12 I've posted what the a few of the church fathers stated. There are more.
The early fathers believed the scriptures to be handed down to them by God. They set them aside and accorded them a special place of honor known as the Bible. Jerome, Augustine and the rest were very meticulous to accord each book a place in the Latin Vulgate. From this Bible the scriptures were read for over hundreds if not thousands of years. Just this fact alone separates these writings from every other writing. Why, some would even say it's a miracle...except the Catholic Church apparently.
It was with the Reformation that the Catholic Bible was altered-a Bible that was used for over 1,500 years. It has only been in the last several decades the Catholic Church has found a need to attack the scripture themselves, raising their knowledge against what has been handed down. This argument against Sola Scriptura is simply another form of it. Consequently, now regrettably the Catholic Church has fallen into severe theological heresy as it desperately tries to perserve its institution. It attacks the atonement. It attacks the scriptures. It attack the very work of Christ, replacing it with a man-made institution that now relies upon the works of man to get them to heaven, telling people they can get to heaven if they just live a good life.
How very sad indeed. People would do well to pay attention to the corruption of some of these doctrines and what the early fathers were telling us.
You should support freedom of speech and ideas. Even those ideas are against your own. Let them rant.
Maybe you need to check those statements. LOL!
"Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful
to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from
it.”
If I'm following your argument correctly, who had the
authority to add the other Scriptures after Deuteronomy?
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).
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).
http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till (emphasis added) she had brought forth her firstborn Son.fn And he called His name JESUS." Matthew 1:24-25
Also, the RCC Catechism teaches:
(1601) The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
(1620) Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will. Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:
Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.
(1640) Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.
(2335) Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." All human generations proceed from this union.
So, was Mary married to Joseph as the Scriptures and the RCC teach, or is she a perpetual virgin as the RCC teaches?
No, there was One who did not. The Rock upon which the Church is built. And it wasn't/isn't Peter the the thrice denier.
Well, you’re going to believe what you’re going to believe. I’ll take the Word of God over the word of any church any day of the week.
Please check your Scripture!
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.