I thought you were a Bible believer.

What I 'believe' or not has NO bearing on the FACT that your first pope has been RECORDED as NOT baptizing 'properly'.

Wear your albatross with pride!

Well, I guess that proves something, but not what would please you.

Things haven’t been frozen in time. Peter was not the last pope, only the first. Some were not saints, some were. But the deposit of faith has been maintained through out two millenia.

Well, I guess that proves something, but not what would please you.

How do you know what would please me?

MINDREADING??

But the deposit of faith has been maintained through out two millenia.

Mary; I hate to break your heart; but your returns were not needed.

It seems to me that you are trying to prove that I am wrong and that the Catholic Church is wrong. It doesn’t take a mind reader to get that impression.

It seems to me that you are trying to prove that I am wrong and that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Heck; you can't even determine intent properly!

I posted what your CHURCH has recorded in it's book and I posted what your church is teaching right now.

I don't have to PROVE anything!!

Sola Scriptura is in fact repudiated in the Bible

Let's see your reference 2 Tim 3:16 -->

FIRSTLY note what it actually says "All Scripture is breathed out by God" -- and note what it does not say. It does NOT say "sola scriptura" i.e. ONLY scripture.

In addition 2 Timothy was written before the gospels of Luke and John were written, so do you then say that it doesn't refer to them? Or perhaps you wish to say that you, App Dowdy, toss out the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation and you, App Dowdy don’t consider the Gospel of John as scripture, because it was written after 2 Timothy?

Richard -- Dannyboy's circular reasoning that the church of Dan (which differs in beliefs from every other grouping outside orthodoxy - they all do)

is sola scriptura (which is non-scriptural) - so a fallacy

and

sola fide (which again is non-scriptural) - so a negative fact

Whatever their belief system is, if they put their limitations on God and then reject God saying clearly that the 1 tim 3:15 the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. - then they reject God.

Richard - firstly, while Apple Dowdy may agree with you on the Divine Godhead, the other non-Catholics on the thread WON'T agree with you

-- besides the Mormons who see a multitude of gods,

you have Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's witnesses who see Jesus as the archangel Michael;

and

you have some Pentecostals who deny the trinity - this oneness pentecostals teach that "Oneness teaching asserts that God is a singular spirit who is one, not three person.... "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" (also known as the Holy Spirit) are merely titles reflecting the different personal manifestations of the One True God in the universe

it's very nice to try and get ecumenism, but you must realize that the only thing that unites all of these people is that they aren't part of orthodoxy. In every other belief they differ, at times rabidly

Thomas Aquinas speaks of substance and incidents. For instance, water is H2O - water - that is its substance. It can present itself to us through its incidents which we perceive with our senses. Normally, we think of water as wet, kind of runny, and a little chilly. BUT water can also be hard and very cold (ice), it can be soft, lacy, and very cold (snow), or it can be barely visible and mobile (steam). But through all these changes in its incidents, its “substance” remains water.

Similarly, take wood, wood can present itself under various incidents whether it is perceived by us as a tree, a table, a pile of ashes, or a piece of paper. They all still remain wood, but with very different incidents.

Now, everything that we can think of in our normal experience is composed of the substance, which for us is an abstract concept, and incidents, which is how we perceive them through our senses.

And everything in our experience remains what it essentially is in its substance, but changes in its incidents. If you can grasp that concept, I want you to take it one step further.

In the most Holy Eucharist, exactly the reverse happens: the INCIDENTS remain the same, but the SUBSTANCE (what IT is) changes. So instead of an incidental change (say the water evaporating or the wood being burned) we have a substantial change where the substance changes, while the incidents perceived by our senses remains the same. This is why it is called transubstantiation.

So, you may well ask, since our senses cannot perceive it, how can we know it happens? Because it was God Himself who told us this, and God CANNOT lie as He is Truth Itself. God, in His Incarnation as Our Blessed Lord, was very patient in trying to explain this to you, in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel.

He is very patient, and very slow. First He starts by showing that He can do miracles in feeding people by making the miracles of the loaves. Then He moves on to the manna in the desert. Finally, He reveals that it is truly His Body and His Blood, and insists that they eat it “else they have no life in them.”

Now, this was extremely hard for the disciples to understand as they were all Jews and had been brought up since childhood to reject anything that looked like cannibalism or drinking blood. But Our Blessed Lord is trying to bring them to understand that this is not cannibalism as they are eating a risen body and the effects are spiritual - and without eating His Body and drinking His Blood, they will have NO life in them.

This is very important and the central truth of Christianity, the thing about which all the rest is built. This is the great mystery that God has been providing for since Melchizedek offered bread and wine to God Most High back in Genesis, to the offering of the lambs in sacrifice, to the manna in the desert.

Our Blessed Lord transubstantiates the bread and wine into His Risen Body during Mass

If you desire further proof of the power of this blood, remember where it came from, how it ran down from the cross, flowing from the Master’s side. The gospel records that when Christ was dead, but still hung on the cross, a soldier came and pierced his side with a lance and immediately there poured out water and blood. Now the water was a symbol of baptism and the blood, of the holy eucharist. The soldier pierced the Lord’s side, he breached the wall of the sacred temple, and I have found the treasure and made it my own. So also with the lamb: the Jews sacrificed the victim and I have been saved by it.

Jn 19:34

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1 Jn 5:6-8

6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit" Jn 3:5

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Lk 22:20

20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Mt 26:28

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Cor 11:23-26

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

say the Nicene Creed? (just as many of us Protestants do)

Apple -- the Nicene Creed is a perfect example of why you cannot club yourself with the others on this thread -- there are those who call themselves "Protestants" but reject aspects of the Creed and others say they don't want to say it.

you don't have even that in common with them. That's why I reject using the term "Protestant" - it's describes too broad a group of contradictory beliefs

Richard -- Dannyboy's circular reasoning that the church of Dan (which differs in beliefs from every other grouping outside orthodoxy - they all do)

More sophistry. The issue was never that of one particular church being the one true one, as Rome imaginatively claims for herself, but that as stated, "The point and issue is that if Catholics can object to even the pope being called a Catholic, then we should be able to object to this “Massacre the Jews, God, hit them with your sword" pastor being uncritically described as a evangelical. Do you agree or disagree?"

but is sola scriptura (which is non-scriptural) - so a fallacy

Another vain assertion, presuming veracity for your denial of SS and affirmation of its alternative of sola ecclesia, which is fallacious. .

and sola fide (which again is non-scriptural) - so a negative fact

Which vain assertion likewise depends upon a false contrivance of salvation by effectual regenerating, heart-purifying faith (not a faith that is alone) which Peter preached. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)

Whatever their belief system is, if they put their limitations on God and then reject God saying clearly that the 1 tim 3:15 the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. - then they reject God.

Which is another fallacy, presuming that Catholicism is that church of the living God, when actually Catholicism is mostly dead and doctrinally disallowed as being the NT church, while the Greek of that 1 Tim 3:15 simply fails to teach that the church itself - must less that of Rome - is the source and ensured infallible authority on Truth, while in reality the church as the body of Christ is founded upon Truth and supports it.

Thus we are left with what the issue and question you have avoided answering, "if Catholics can object to even the pope being called a Catholic, then we should be able to object to this “Massacre the Jews, God, hit them with your sword" pastor being uncritically described as a evangelical. Do you agree or disagree?"

Nah Dannyboy - your posts always remind me of 1 Timothy

f any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions,

Now as you've seen, Scripture itself shows that Sola Scriptura i.e. scripture ALONE is non-scriptural!

Thus we are left with what the issue and question you have avoided answering, why do you have evangelicals who hold on to this and then reject the Trinity? This is because their very teaching is non-Christian and unsound as your answers show. Do you agree or disagree?"

And the problem is that you are trying to put your restrictions on God with “only” — God said clearly baptism AND penance AND faith etc. - all under Grace and in the community (Church) — not the “church of Dannyboy” - i.e. the church of 1 but in a Catholic church under god

The false teachings that some non-orthodoxy have that reject the Trinity eetc. are from false messengers, false prophets — don’t be one, danny

Remember what St. Paul wrote

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

(Ephesians 4:2–6)

unfortunately the groups outside orthodoxy are unable to honour these seven unity statements. These seven doctrinal facts are not negotiable, nor optional, yet they are fully ignored by the non-orthodoxy groups

And the problem is that you are trying to put your restrictions on God with “only” — God said clearly baptism AND penance AND faith etc. - all under Grace and in the community (Church) — not the “church of Dannyboy” - i.e. the church of 1 but in a Catholic church under god

Which further displays your ignorance of sola ecclesia as I have so often described it, in which it is penitent faith alone which appropriates justification by faith, - regenerating heart-purifying faith being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 4:5) even before the Law, and not by works of righteousness that we have done (Titus 3:5) - but which faith is that which effects obedience, from confessing the Lord in mouth and in baptism (body language) and so forth. For as cited and ignored, Peter preached,

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:43-48)

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

However, since obedience testifies to faith, then salvation is promised to those who obey, as Peter promised in Acts 2:38 (baptism being their confession: cf. Rm. 10:9-13) like as the Lord interchangeably used forgiveness and healing in the case of the palsied man in asking, "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" (Mark 2:9) For forgiveness one effected the other and go together, as to faith and works. However, the effect is not the cause, but the effect does validate, "or fulfill" the validity of the cause, as James 2 shows.

And note that is James 2:17-25 is teaching that Abraham received his justification when he offered up Issac, then he is in contradiction to both Moses and Paul, which show it was when Abraham believed the promise of a Son. However, he was justified by works as being a believer, versus being one of those with an inert dead faith - and which contrast is the context of James here - by his profound "obedience of faith." Which Rahab also displayed.

Thus believers are accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to sit with Him in Heaven (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and have immediate access into the holy of holies by His sinless sherd blood. (Heb. 10:19) And while lacking in full Christ-like character, the Corinthians were told that they were washed, sanctified and justified, (1 Co. 6:11) yet those who impenitently continue in know sin are not of faith. (2 Co. 12:21; 13:5)

The false teachings that some non-orthodoxy have that reject the Trinity eetc. are from false messengers, false prophets — don’t be one, danny

Which is another unwarranted insinuation , while you are left with distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Remember what St. Paul wrote With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:2–6)

Invoking this call to unity while defending an elitist self-proclaimed fractured one true church which denigrates Prot churches as unworthy to be properly called churches, is insolent.

unfortunately the groups outside orthodoxy are unable to honour these seven unity statements. These seven doctrinal facts are not negotiable, nor optional, yet they are fully ignored by the non-orthodoxy groups

Actually, rather than being the body of Christ that this refers to, which is the only one true church to which Christ bought with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and is married to, (Eph. 5:25) since it is alone only and always consisted 100% of true believers in the Lord, born of the one Spirit and by Whom they are baptized/spiritually immersed into one body (1 Co. 12:13) holding to the one saving obedient faith, expressed in baptism, with Spirit of the Divine Son of God the Father in them who cries out from their heart, Abba, Father, (Galatians 4:6)

In contrast, Catholicism is an admixture of (mostly) unregenerate souls who can only imagine their water baptism as infants (usually) who cannot fulfill the stated requirement for baptism of penitent whole-hearted faith (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) has made them regenerate, and thus good enough to be with God (thru baptismal "infused charity"). Yet since the unholy sinful nature is all too alive, then since it soon manifests itself then (unless the die having obtained freedom from any attachment to sin) and atoned for all their post-baptismal sins, then in RC teaching they must face "purifying punishments in RC (nor EO) Purgatory until they accomplish the needed atone for sins and become good enough in character to actually enter Heaven to be with God/Christ.

In contrast, this premise would also exclude the contrite criminal of Luke 23:43 from being with Christ at death, yet who was told by the Lord that he would be with Christ in Paradise that day. And likewise imperfect Paul, (Philippians 3:13) who attested that to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:7; cf. Philippians 1:23) And indeed it would exclude all believers who were told that they would be forever with the Lord if He returned in their lifetime (1 This. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul.

In contrast, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)

And rather than Purgatory conforming souls to Christ to inherit the kingdom of God, the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being made like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ And which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure!) due to the manner of material one built the church with. But which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

Note also that the tradition-based Eastern Orthodox reject RC Purgatory, among some other substantial RC distinctives

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6) The Lord Jesus, in being "made perfect" (Hebrews 2:10) as regards experientially "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15) was subjected to this in the life.

Nah Dannyboy - your posts always remind me of 1 Timothy f any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Now as you've seen, Scripture itself shows that Sola Scriptura i.e. scripture ALONE is non-scriptural!

Rather, contrary to your recourse of asserting fallacies as if that makes them true, I have not seem Sola Scriptura - properly understood - is non-scriptural, but in fact God;s chosen means of reliable preservation is writing, and that Scripture is the only substantive infallible sufficient - in its formal and material senses - for faith and morals. And that its alternative, of sola ecclesia - or more precisely sola Rome (the church alone is the supreme sufficient authority, providing both Scripture and oral Tradition, infallibly determining and interpreting both) is what is non-scriptural!

Since this the case, and since Caths typically construe SS into meaning that only Scripture formally provides all that is needed, and only can be used to understand God's will, then I referenced the below by the grace of God, but which was apparently ignored and thus your fallacious assertion was repeated.

14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia

Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and materiel senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,

1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of of apostles was subject to testing by:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.

3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.

4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 182 8, etc.)

7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.

Questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia:

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and that provided the prophetic and doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office as a judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired express and public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

Thus we are left with what the issue and question you have avoided answering, why do you have evangelicals who hold on to this and then reject the Trinity? This is because their very teaching is non-Christian and unsound as your answers show. Do you agree or disagree?"

That was not ignored, but answered with the response that if a commonality is held by two parties then they should be treated as one, then since evangelicals hold many things Catholics do, then your chosen Brazilian example is Catholic. Meanwhile if SS is to be indicted as the cause of aberrations, versus blamed by the misuse of an instrument then by that reasoning you could blame the Bible itself for abuse of it, since the devil quotes it, as does your favored Brazilian example of evangelicals and as do Catholics.

All and all, your responses continue to be an example Catholic apologetic sophistry, and parroting refuted Catholic apologetic propaganda, which take up more valuable time to expose, by the grace of God.