which without fail leads to the most fundamental non-Catholic doctrine of all,
Followed shortly thereafter with,
explaining that the Bible says for Christians to go along to get along with whatever is popular in society.
Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Is this an example of you always taking the high road until the Catholics come out with the knives?"
Do I detect a note of sarcasm? But, I am not trying to impress; I am trying to inform, to educate. The RCC has pretended its way onto a stage of its own making. There is no biblical support for the organization.
Worse, however, is the unbiblical doctrine taught by the group. Sacerdotalism, purgatory, indulgences, absolution, sacraments, mariolatry, and so forth are man-made traditions of the worst sort. This is not "anti-Catholic vitriol", it is simple truth and a call to those entrapped in the errors to run...if Christ will permit them.
Having dealt with you with patience and understanding in the past only to be treated with ignorance and disrespect, let me reply with all the candor your comments deserve: SNERK whatever you reckon mate.
The bankruptcy of Rome is showing...
That would be your view of your religion in the mirror.
As we’ve seen before, there are a very few folks whose posts indicate a religious view based almost entirely on ‘not-Catholic.’ For these few having a Church to rail against seems critical.
Without something they are against, Catholicism in this case, all their energy about religion disappears.
Okay, my FRiend, your posts are beginning to sound like, "I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say..."
If you can prove that Jesus said that Rome was going to be the location of a gigantus organzition which controlled all of the thoughts/doctrines/practices of Christians, then bring it on. Show us biblicists where those passages are. We represent our positions with biblical support...please do the same. If you can.
My posts here claim those do not exist. They certainly exist in the minds/hearts/personal documents of the RCC, but not in the Scriptures. There is an entirely different story told there. But, Rome poo-poos it like your post. Well, there you have it: The Bible vs. Poo Poo.
It is an often repeated joke among lawyers that every court case folds when it is revealed that the opposition has a "bus load of nuns" on its witness list. In spite of yours being a speciously posed question, we CAN and DO prove exactly that. We have the witness of 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition augmenting the Sacred Scripture expressed through the Magisterium of the Church. Try as you like, you will never convince Catholic jury members to the contrary.
Peace be with you.
Augmenting? We are not given one passage which supports the monstrosity of Rome being a central headquarters and you claim "augmenting"? Please, we are adults here.
You are welcome to your internally-produced witness list swearing to your manufactured history. We happen to have the Book on our side. We'll see how the Judge rules...His Word against a whole bus full of nuns.
This “show me from Scripture” garbage is just that, garbage, as it not only completely disregards the entire Cathloic claim (ignores it, more accurately like a child sticking his fingers in his ears saying “I can’t hear you”, INSTEAD of actually examine THAT claim for veracity)...it’s not only that level of infantile reasoning, but sadly many of my fellow Catholics allow themselves to be suckered into that giant sucking red herring invented, yes INVENTED, by the “Reformers”, ie MAN, not God, as they chase in vain to find Scripture passages to “prove Catholicism from the Bible.”
But I will never let myself be so suckered, not until at LEAST any or all Protestants/anti Catholic Christians answer the following: Which do you think came first: Efforts to spread the Gospel, ie, evangelization, OR the Bible? IOW, what do you think Peter, and the rest of em did right after Jesus ascended into Heaven? Or even right after Pentecost?
Do you think they rushed home to hurriedly write down what the Holy Spirit told them to write? Do you think they did THAT FIRST, or do you think maybe, perhaps, they were out preaching the Good News, BASED on the Faith deposit given at Pentecost, and thus, Scripture is a RESuLT of the CHURCH’s actions AS they went about the business of spreading the Gospel?
I will answer for you so there is no question what the right answer is: It’s obviously the LATTER, so to ask for “proof” of Catholcism from Scripture alone is the biggest red herring in all of human history. It’s so, because the very first disciples obviously got along PERfECTLY WELL WITHOUT Scripture. ie, the truth about Christianity, the Gospel isn’t “based on Scripture”, rather the exact opposite. Scripture is the written record of the Faith GENERATED and TRANSMITTED by the CHURCH (the Church preserved by God of course, not the sect represented by the original post of this thread)
I only hope in the time it took me to write this, that no Cathloic has taken your poisonous “show me in the Bible” bait. Or else we’re probably headed toward another epically long thread that serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.
Again.
Well, you have provided a great deal of the useless material you dread.
"But I will never let myself be so suckered, not until at LEAST any or all Protestants/anti Catholic Christians answer the following: Which do you think came first: Efforts to spread the Gospel, ie, evangelization, OR the Bible? IOW, what do you think Peter, and the rest of em did right after Jesus ascended into Heaven? Or even right after Pentecost?"
If this is actually a question (or two, or three), then let's discuss this. The "Bible" is a composite library of 66 books/letters/writings written by perhaps 150 "writers" and one Author. I believe that every single thinking person in the world believes that the great majority of that library came before the so-called evangelism to which you refer. Thirty nine of the 66, to be exact.
The Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim were completed some 400 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The rest of the letters (epistles) and other writings (gospels, journals) of the so-called New Testament were penned shortly after the events they record happened or concurrent with the issues to which they speak.
I don't mean to disappoint you (well, perhaps you need to be), but folks were being saved all the way back to the beginning of mankind. Try reading Paul's letter to the Hebrews chap. 11 and notice that "faith" has been granted to all the elect throughout history. Abel, Noah, Abraham, are all part of the family God has been calling out. Rome clearly was not there.
When Jesus was crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended, the Holy Spirit first came upon the Jews, then upon the Gentiles. While these Post-Pentecost believers did understand a lot more clearly God's rescue plan for the chosen, their "grafting in" brought them into an existing family with no more status than any of the previously saved men/women/children.
If any of the writers of the Scriptures thought Rome was going to be pre-eminent, then they certainly would have recorded such a monumental claim. After all, Rome demands this acquiescence. But, your remarks disclose a possible frustration at not being able to find such a claim. You cannot because it is not there.
Rome has wrongly fixated on the ascent of their organizational gargantuan as something other than what it really is...a self-created clubhouse for unwed fathers.
Sorry to have to disagree but this just isn't so. Even before there was a new testament the disciples were able to prove, from scripture, that Jesus Christ was the prophesied messiah.
2Ti 3:14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy was thought to be written anywhere from 67 to 70 AD. The "holy scriptures" were thus the books of we call the old testament. Either that or we're faced with the prospect that the books of the new testament had already been accepted and called "holy" by early Christians.
Either way there WERE scriptures that were read, used and taught from to make one "wise" of the salvation through Christ.
You are under the mistaken impression that the Bible is required to prove everything, it isn't. You see the Catholic Church existed for almost 300 years before the Bible, and 1300 before the B@$T@RDIZEd KJV. We have 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and the magesterium on our side.
So when you can demonstrate to this revert Catholic that the Bible came before the Catholic Church you might have a case, but I doubt it.
Okay, now that is revisionist history if I ever heard it (and I have heard Rome provide a lot of it around here). By ordinary reckoning, since Moses wrote the first books in the Bible, this places your cult organization at about 1700BC in order to predate the first books by 300 years. Amazing.
Evidently, you were all trapped in Egypt right along with the Jews and repeating paternosters, genuflecting, saying "Hail Marys" and buying each other out purgatory while they built the pyramids. Hmmmmm.
This is what we have to put up with from Rome, folks. Move along...nothing to see.
We too have the Book. That Book is not a single Book, but rather a library of books produced from among the many competing contemporary writings some of which were authored by actual Apostles, yet rejected. This was done by the Holy Spirit working through the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.
You can continue to dismiss the Church's role in this, but Scripture, the Sacred Tradition and the Early Church Fathers who gave their lives so that the Church and the Tradition would survive testify otherwise. Further postings to the contrary are only wasting your time and mine. The Word of God, the Logos, is so very much more than a book.
Peace be with you
This is my precise point and you still don't accept the important implication. And I'm not talking about the Scriptures only for the Jews. Before I was clearly referencing the Scriptures for everyone ( IOW the "old" Testament and the "new"). Did you realize that, or were you being obtuse?
Because I have little time for obfuscation. And depite what you claim, there is very little historical evidence that any ("New Testament") Scripture that existed before at the earliest, AD 50.
Think about that for a second, that's 20 years AFTER Christ died and rose from the dead. TWENTY YEARS! Do you think the Church just sat idle all that time and did nothing but write Scripture all day long?
Or hey, if you don't want to think of it that way, consider this: what are the names of the books of the NT? Aren't they names like, " The LETTER of St Paul to the Romans" and "The first Epistle of Saint Peter"?
Letters, epistles, oh my! Almost sound like things written in the MIDST of an ongoing act, ie, evangelization, not as a PRECURSOR TO it.
You are right to sense frustration on my part. But not for the reason you believe. No, I'm not frustrated because the "evidence" you demand from Scripture isn't there, I'm frustrated that you and everyone else like you demand we play YOUR game ( and yes it's a game, not real intellectual discourse) and this game is to try to FORCE Scripture to be something it was never intended to be, ie, a complete ( or nearly complete) record of EVERYTHING the Early Church believed.
It's not nor was it ever intended to be that.
So again, I refuse to play by the rules Protestants/anti-Catholic "Christians" demand. You aren't the only ones with an opinion about the very nature of the Church and/ or it's function and in fact, your opinions about the nature of the Early Church are clearly based upon nothing but "find reasons to reject Catholicism".
If you want to discuss/debate anything with me, let it be that ( the nature/composition/intention/function of the Early Church). I will not be providing Scripture to "prove Catholicism", because that's precisely the game you are demanding. And it misses and obfuscates the REAL solution to these " debates" entirely, thus is a complete waste of time.
which without fail leads to the most fundamental non-Catholic doctrine of all,
Followed shortly thereafter with,
explaining that the Bible says for Christians to go along to get along with whatever is popular in society.
+1
Right, there were Scriptures read for edification but that wasn’t the ONLY way the Faith was transmitted nor even the most EFFECTIVE way, I’d submit.
See my post 115.
A church (ekklesia = “group of people”) is not an organizational chart.....it’s just a group of people. Who often disagree.
If one leaves the Church, there is no other option than sola scriptura and each individual's interpretation.
Some then try to make it a virtue - by necessity.
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.