Posted on 05/19/2015 5:18:06 PM PDT by ebb tide
No, the church, the body of Christ, should not be ignored.
However, the burden of proof is on you to prove that Catholicism IS that body.
Until then, ignoring the Catholic church with all its unScriptural teachings, is still an option for born again believers.
There is a simple negative proof.
1
Christ’s Church will be with us until the end of the world (”the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”)
2
Christ’s Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” given the Holy Spirit by Christ to lead it into all truth. It cannot teach error, or IOW, bind believers to erroneous belief.
3
So Christ’s Church must possess a non-contradictory body of dogmatic teaching.
4
This Church must have been in continuous existence since Apostolic times. If it passed out of visible existence criteria #1 would be contradicted.
5
The Catholic Church is the only possible candidate to meet requirements 4 and 5. Her Teaching is non-contradictory.
No Protestant Church possesses anything close. All Protestants agree on only four or five beliefs, at most. This is hardly “all truth.” And no visible Protestant Church can trace its history to the Apostles, as the Catholic Church can.
6
If you claim that no visible church meets criteria 4 and 5, then your claim would contradict 1.
There, fixed it for you.
Your *negative proof* proves nothing. It must be positive proof. The process of elimination does not positively prove anything simply based on the presumption that all other options have been eliminated and we think we’re the only one left, therefore we are it.
It’s easy to set up conditions that no one else can meet and then claim you are the ones because lo and behold, we meet the conditions we set up.
How convenient.
What nonsense.
Make the claim and back it up with POSITIVE proof.
Addressing your attempts at negative proof......
1) The body of Christ, comprised of all born again/born from above believers during the church age, will be in existence until the end. That does NOT equate to the Catholic church.
2) No, there is no guarantee that the *church* will never teach error. The Truth is God’s word. The job of the church is to uphold that truth for people to see. That is no guarantee of inerrant TEACHING of the truth. Nor can any church bind any believer to erroneous belief. However, Catholicism tries with all the anathema’s it pronounces on those who disagree with it, but it’s really only binding on Catholics, not believers.
3)No, that is never set up by Christ at a job of the church.
4) The body of Christ has been in existence since its inception. However, no one denomination can make that claim and no one denomination is the *one true church* because the body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. The Catholic church is wrong about what constitutes the church.
5)Nonsense. Catholicism’s whole history is one of contradictory teachings, changing with the latest council or papal pronouncement. It’s one contradiction after another and has been demonstrated so on this forum regularly.
So the Catholic church has just disqualified itself by its own standards.
Insofar as Mary did carry Christ, our New Covenant, then she is in a unique and exalted status, as was the ARK of the Old Covenant untouchable (except to the Levites of Koriah). Mary carried the Divine Savior in her womb, she who did not know man.
Recall the story of Uzziah, who, when he saw the Ark tipping to one side, sought to touch the Ark and was killed for his trouble. (2 Samuel 6:1-7)
Now remember, he touched the ARK, not the covenant contained therein.
Of Mary, she herself prophesied in Luke 1:48, “All generations shall call me Blessed.”
I would venture to hazard a guess here, that no one has ever called Mary blessed in your church. Your bible-believing church.
Also, when speaking to the APOSTLES, mere men, in Matthew 16:19, he tells them, “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Let me make it plain here, that by apostolic succession, anointed men, “uncrowned” as they were, to use your term,
HAVE POWER OVER HEAVEN AND EARTH!!
Got that?
Now in your church, no one claims such power; and yes, even if they tried to do so, THAT would be blasphemous. I repeat ... you and your church do not have that power, nor can you claim it as ‘bible-believing Christians’. You have no such power and never will.
So the priests of the Catholic Church do have this power. . We have the authority. Not you. Not your ‘church’. Not ever.
Well, if you became a Catholic and then became a priest;
but that’s another story ... a Saul from Tarsus kind of story.
Furthermore, you may come up with the dodge too often used by Protestants, “show me where that is in the Bible”.
We, as Catholics, DO rely on verbal tradition. We have both the Christ-given authority to do so, AND the scripture to back it up.
2 Thessolonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by WORD, or our letter.
Here, once again, dear ‘Bible-believing Christian’, just off the top of my head, I’m guessing you have ZERO, NOTHING, NADA in the spoken tradition department. And again, you have no power or authorization to say if something is or isn’t true as spoken OR written, no power to bind in heaven or unbind, and the only “letter” you have is the Bible, which was compiled by the, ahem,
CATHOLIC CHURCH.
This compilation of the Bible was completed in the 4th Century AD, as the Church, (the Catholic Church; yours did not even exist) was freed from constant persecution by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD.
So I have given a few quick reasons, but perhaps we can touch on a few more as to why THE Church, The Catholic Church, can claim to be the PILLAR, the FOUNDATION — of TRUTH.
OK, so let me ask you a question, do you consider your church to be THE foundation of truth? Would it not be more accurate for me to guess that you would answer that the BIBLE is the pillar and foundation of truth for you and the members of your church? Yes?
1 Timothy 3:15
“If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Soooo, if it ISN’T the BIBLE, and it certainly isn’t your church, then, hmmm, what church could it possibly be?
Enough of that for now. I hope that you can grasp the plain-meaning of these verses, and not do a lot of theological tap-dancing to try to prove an impossible position.
Now about this Mary, this Blessed Mary, this Blessed Virgin Mary.
How could and why would Almighty God give her any power? By now, hopefully you realize that men have been given power from on high to bind and loose sins, indeed “uncrowned men” (What a phrase??? Where on earth ... oh, never mind) can do GREATER WORKS THAN ALMIGHTY GOD HIMSELF.
“Blasphemy!”, you say. And more, “The elect are not even crowned until the Lord returns, and nowhere is Mary said to be given such power in the wholly inspired word of God ...”
A quick aside here ... if you are going to call yourself a Bible-believing Christian, it’s about high time for you to get off the stick and really start reading the Bible. Sheesh.
Power has been given to those that Christ, Almighty God, has designated.
Now scripturally speaking, can Mary say she is holding back the hand of God? Yes. Could I do it too? Yes, again. You? Ummm, maybe, with a FEW, GIGANTIC re-triangulations in you theology! Ha!
Here is the sovereign word of Jesus Christ, King of the Universe, Almighty God:
John 14:12
“Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and GREATER THAN THESE SHALL HE DO, because I go to the Father.”
So yes, Mary, the “lowly handmaid of the Lord”, the Mother of Jesus, who is God; the Mother of God then, does have this power. Some men have more heavenly power by the grace of God than others, and so by her position as Mother of God, she has been given more power by the Trinity than any person on earth.
Uh, backtracking a bit, another of those un-crowned guys, Elijah the Prophet, brought a drought upon the land.
1 Kings 17
“And Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the Lord God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, except at my word.”
And don’t you EVEN get me started on Moses; uncrowned Moses.
(If nothing else, I hope to rid you of the ‘uncrowned men’ crapola.)
Another thing about Elisha, Elijah’s successor. Now I’m going to let you look this one up for yourself. Blow the dust off your Bible and see if you can find where the mere bones of Elisha brought a man back to life. I know, I know, you’re thinking this is one of those crazy Catholic stories they made up just to justify praying to saints, but guhead, giveera try. Chapter and verse please.
Now we come to the crux of your missive. You claim I have blasphemed. Your claim DOES have a precedent in scripture:
John 10:36
“Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?
37”If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, BELIEVE THE WORKS, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
In my letter in the Forum, I wrote about a public miracle in the 20th Century, witnessed by Catholics, Protestants, atheists and skeptics of all stripes. Photographs were taken during the event. Newspaper articles were written along with other testimonies of those present.
A word to the wise Dan’l. Be extremely careful about what you call blasphemous, especially insofar as if you’re wrong, you are violating the 8th commandment. I do not believe you looked at the movie I discussed, nor did you research the Miracle itself. There is hard evidence about it. It is recorded, photographed history.
Again, as Christ said, paraphrasing, ‘If you cannot believe in Me, at least believe in the works I do.’ Look, see, believe, and stop thine unbelief.
This public miracle was and is a warning from the Mother of Christ to mankind to stop sinning. If we do not do so, terrible consequences will follow. They already have in the form of the rise of communism and WW II.
The roles of Mary are varied, but among them is a position similar to Moses in that she pleads for God’s mercy on His creation. The is what Fatima is about. Whether you or anyone else believes is governed by free will and the grace of the Holy Spirit. Also, in my Free Republic note, I listed other prophetesses, including one who died in the 60’s, warning mankind of an imminent chastisement.
We have been warned to pray, fast and do penance.
Too fitting
FLAGGED: Repetitive out-of-context quote that distorts the meaning of Jesus' words.
Recall the story of Uzziah, who, when he saw the Ark tipping to one side, sought to touch the Ark and was killed for his trouble. (2 Samuel 6:1-7)
Now remember, he touched the ARK, not the covenant contained therein.
What? So anyone who touched Mary was killed instantly?
Or is it anyone who touched Jesus was killed instantly?
Then how did the crowds press around Him and not die? And how did He touch people to heal them and they not die?
Mary only said that at the time of the annunciation that she had not yet known a man, so she was puzzled over how she could be pregnant. That doesn't mean she never would know a man, and obviously, being engaged, she fully intended *knowing* a man, her husband. It's an expectation of marriage.
Here, once again, dear ‘Bible-believing Christian’, just off the top of my head, I’m guessing you have ZERO, NOTHING, NADA in the spoken tradition department.
So what? We have the inerrant, unchangeable word of the Living God. We don't need men's opinions added to it. It is sufficient for everything we need to come to know Jesus and grow and mature in Him. It is spiritual food for our spirit.
We have been warned to pray, fast and do penance.
No thanks. Not interested in going back into the bondage of a works based salvation religious system.
BTW, for what it's worth, your arguments for the validity of your church are not worth the electrons you used.
Please prove that what the Catholic Church teaches as "tradition" is exactly what the apostles taught that they called "tradition".
Let’s follow the logic.
The ark also contained a cup of manna and Aaron’s “budding rod”, so Mary being the ark must have had other children besides the “new covenant”.
Your ridiculous logic in this post appeals to Roman Catholics evidently.
Was your answer Yes or No?
In all the confusion; I kinda lost count.
Nope.
The book the Catholic Church put together calls her BLESSED.
Why does it feel necessary to add to this???
No question this Pope is a Communist.
He is very stupid too if he really believes all the propaganda even though the facts prove it’s bull$hit.
I guess he has not heard of Climate-gate where they got caught cooking the data for at least 10 years?
What about NASA has updated its data from satellite readings, revealing that the planet’s polar ice caps have not retreated significantly since 1979, when measurements began.
It is a misconception (deliberately cultivated by Modernists) that certain infallible teachings were formally set aside by the VII Council.
This itself is far from an infallible teaching, while the issue is the prerogative of Rome to interpret herself, and which here is not setting aside infallible teachings , but interpreting them so as to clarify what they always meant. Regardless of evidence to the contrary.
And Ratzinger was not sanctioning dissent, for as he goes on to say (you forgot to source the document),
In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium 25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations. - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032
And in a more weighty papal statement, Pope Paul VI stated during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, Dec. 7, 1965:
But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force.. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6TOLAST.HTM
Still later he stated that the Council “avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,” and added that it conferred on its teachings “the value of the supreme ordinary magisterium” (Speech of Jan 12, 1966), and that “It had as much authority and far greater importance than the Council of Nicaea.” Elsewhere he has called iit “the greatest of Councils” and “Even greater than the Council of Trent.” :
Perhaps the most clear cut statement is to be found in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre demanding his submission to the post-Conciliar Church
“You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its ‘definitions’ as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic.” - http://www.the-pope.com/magchuco.html
And as SSPVs themselves assert,
no one but no one can "resist" and/or refuse to obey" a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter," versus presuming to become judges and teachers, who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past.
They this supply this from Pius X:
To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path.
And to fail in this most holy duty it is not necessary to perform an action in open opposition whether to the Bishops or to the Head of the Church; it is enough for this opposition to be operating indirectly, all the more dangerous because it is the more hidden. Thus, a soul fails in this sacred duty when, at the same time that a jealous zeal for the power and the prerogatives of the Sovereign Pontiff is displayed, the Bishops united to him are not given their due respect, or sufficient account is not taken of their authority, or their actions and intentions are interpreted in a captious manner, without waiting for the judgment of the Apostolic See.
Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.....
Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.
When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation....
No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly to arrogate to themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion....
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces...
If by chance there should be in the ranks of the episcopate a bishop not sufficiently mindful of his dignity and apparently unfaithful to one of his sacred obligations, in spite of this he would lose nothing of his power, and, so long as he remained in communion with the Roman Pontiff, it would certainly not be permitted to anyone to relax in any detail the respect and obedience which are due his authority.
On the other hand, to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. At the same time, when the faithful have grave cause for complaint, they are allowed to put the whole matter before the Roman Pontiff, provided always that, safeguarding prudence and the moderation counseled by concern for the common good, they do not give vent to outcries and recriminations which contribute rather to the rise of divisions and ill-feeling, or certainly increase them.
These fundamental principles, which cannot be gainsaid without bringing in their wake confusion and ruin in the government of the Church, We have many, many times been careful to recall and to inculcate...
Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart...
And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
It is clear that this submission is not limited in scope, and the above is consistent with what the same pope said in VEHEMENTER NOS,
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),
Therefore unless you are willing to concede that while RCs censure Prots for interpreting their supreme infallible authority, likewise RCs interpret their supreme infallible authority. Both see divisions, while those who reverence Scripture the most as more unified in conservative beliefs than the overall fruit of Rome.
Your other alternative is to do what the SSPV require in censuring the "resist while recognize" the pope, which is to hold that the modern popes are not valid popes at all, which therefore validate their dissent. Not doing so means that as like Prots are censured for doing, you interpret what authentic teachers and teaching consists of, and its meaning, by personal examination of evidence.
Yet Roman teaching states that one must place faith in her (as the instrument and steward of Divine revelation) to even know what Scripture is and truly means, the logic which invalidates the NT church.
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.