Replies

Renny, that is ridiculous, once again. If Wagglebee says s/he believes what the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches, then it includes the entirety of the Church teachings, NOT “faith in Rome.”

That is the sola that the catholic church follows

Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith

Catechism of the Catholic Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Libreria Editrice Vaticana, page 27. Catechism of the Catholic Church

Where did you come up with the idea that it was “not faith in Christ”? That right there is an excellent example of how the Calvinists twist other people’s words, and why your arguments are frequently useless.

What ever gave you the idea there is any such thing as apostolic succession or an "apostolic church "? Or a pope? or a priesthood?

Catholics believe it because Rome tells them it is true..but it is found no where in the foundational writings on the NT church.. That is the sola that the catholic church follows

Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith

I guess I think, as I was saying to Quix, that there is always SOME hermeneutic, some 'method of interpretation'. People who are not Catholics and who claim to rely on Scripture alone always seem to me NOT to be relying on Scripture alone but on a particular method of interpretation. This is called "rightly dividing" or the "plain sense" or something of the kind. But there always seems to be some sort of ordering of texts and selection of possible translations which cloaks -- but on examination reveals -- a scheme which is not found in Scripture alone but in someone's reading of Scripture.

Maybe we Catholics over stress this, but it seems to me that the disagreements among the differing schools of thought which all claim to be "Scripture Alone" makes this the only possible conclusion. On the finer matters of prevenient grace and of the saint's participation, if any, in his salvation, it seems that the hermeneutic dominates, NOT Scripture Alone.

Me, myself, personally, I prick up my ears when anyone says "obviously". Usually it is not so obvious unless you share the speaker's assumptions.