Your comment: “There’s your problem...Somehow thinking that your reason and logic and wisdom are equal with God’s...God never trusted man’s logic, why would you??? “
So we are to believe the fallible words of Luther and other protestant false teachers and believers. So why do you quote St Paul and try to attribute God’s wisdom/conversation to Paul to protestant versions of scripture?
Some may have tried to show the Catholic faith contrary to the Bible, but all have failed with their fallible reasoning.
I rely not only on my own logic and reasoning, but on the Catholic teachings passed down by Christ and the Apostles for 2000 years and many Catholic scholars. While you may not recognize the infallible authority that Christ gave to His Apostles and their successors (His Catholic Church), it was fully documented in the Bible.
You still didn’t answer the questions:
Jesus is the Word made flesh. His word is the Truth that we should follow. So why are there so many different doctrines among christian churches that proclaim His Truth?
How can all the different fallible protestant doctrines be God’s Truth?
How can a pedophile priest be a representative of God.? How can a pedophile commie priest transmogrify a wheat wafer into the body, blood, and divinity of The Lord Christ so you can eat God into your spirit by way of your gut? You remain clueless, substituting the flesh for the spiritual.
“ So why are there so many different doctrines among christian churches that proclaim His Truth?”
Indeed - so many thousands of interpretations and personal doctrines among Romans??
It does seem unusual.
Half don’t seem to acknowledge the pope, who was chosen by the cardinals.
And 35-75% of priests are gay and not in alignment with what is officially taught.
It is hard to explain.
Do you know how this could be?
Ummmm......
Look in the mirror.
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2978293/posts?page=42#42
(Alexandrian: Coptic Rite
Ethiopic Rite
Antiochian:
Maronite Rite
(West) Syrian Rite
Malankara Rite
Armenian Rite:
Armenian Rite
Chaldean or East Syrian:
Chaldean Rite
Syro-Malabar Rite
Byzantine Rite (Constantinopolitan):
Byzantine
Latin (Western) liturgical rites:
Roman Rite
Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms)
Tridentine Mass
Mass of Paul VI
Anglican Use
Ambrosian Rite
Rite of Braga
Mozarabic Rite
Catholic Order Rites (generally defunct):
Benedictine Rite
Carmelite Rite
Carthusian Rite
Cistercian Rite
Dominican Rite
Franciscan Rite
Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
Premonstratensian Rite
Servite Rite
Catholic autonomous particular Churches:
Latin Church with Latin liturgical traditions
Eastern Catholic Churches
Alexandrian liturgical tradition:
Coptic Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Eritrean Catholic Church
Antiochian liturgical tradition:
Maronite Church
Syrian Catholic Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church
Byzantine liturgical tradition:
Albanian Byzantine Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church
Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
Melkite Greek Catholic Church
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic
Russian Greek Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church)
The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained here.
Because that's what's there...No one tries to make scripture fit Protestant church and protestant doctrine...People read the scriptures and build their churches based on those scriptures (alone) and non Catholic churches are created...You guys call them Protestant...
A Catholic religion can't be created based on the scriptures...The scriptures condemn your Catholic doctrine time after time...You have to remove scriptures, ignore scriptures and outright contradict scriptures to what amounts to, usurp the legitimacy of the actual churches Jesus Christ built...
You guys claim to be the bride of Christ when the wedding hasn't even taken place yet...You claim your Church is the kingdom God promised...The bible says NO...
Some may have tried to show the Catholic faith contrary to the Bible, but all have failed with their fallible reasoning.
Has nothing to do with reasoning...It ALL has to do with believing...We don't have to twist scripture to interpret it...We just have to believe it...
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
So do you believe that or not???
Is that a condemnation of your religion or no???
I rely not only on my own logic and reasoning, but on the Catholic teachings passed down by Christ and the Apostles for 2000 years
No, No, No....Why be dishonest...There is no evidence that Jesus Christ passed down any Catholic teaching...Same for the apostles...
While you may not recognize the infallible authority that Christ gave to His Apostles and their successors (His Catholic Church), it was fully documented in the Bible.
Well I'd like to see that documentation...The apostle John was the last apostle...The early church was built and led by the apostles...Jesus, who hasn't left heaven since he went there sent the Holy Spirit to lead his churches...
Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Gal_5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
How can the church be led by a spirit, you say??? That's because the church is a spiritual church, NOT a physical Catholic Church...And if you don't get that, you obviously are not a member...
Rather, like that of your church, despite your Roman self-assertion it is your attempts to show the Catholic faith is that of the NT church of the Bible that has failed, and nothing can rescue them.
I rely not only on my own logic and reasoning, but on the Catholic teachings passed down by Christ and the Apostles for 2000 years and many Catholic scholars.
Actually such are a means to an end, which is (for a faithful RC) to trust in Rome. For notice that in Catholic theology one needs to submit to Rome to assuredly know what is of God:
RC: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, "Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, p. 72;
...the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium
.in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity....Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus, to avoid circularity,
..when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility;
But what is the basis for Catholic assurance that there church is what it claims to be, the one true infallible church? It is because she has Rome has presumed to infallibly declared she is (if conditionally infallible), thus,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that [according to infallible us] the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter.." [as the premise is false, so is the conclusion] (Providentissimus Deus;Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) | LEO XIII)
We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." "We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will." - Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae - Papal Encyclicals
They cannot be all God’s Truth any more than that of Catholicism can be, nor that of Catholics. Consider the various types of Catholics your own church has, based upon their interpretation of what official RC teaching (the interpreter) is and means. Which is a result of they actions of the very solution to disunity, that of looking to the RC magisterium. For while tradRCs attack "Bible Christians" for their disunity due to conflicting interpretations of it, yet their interpreter is neither comprehensive nor without need or possibility of interpretation. Thus as one poster wryly remarked,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
As one of your own lists them:
There are:
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner
(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
A web site popular among "RadTrad" RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/ and which sums up the situation by saying,
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.
Thus we have articles such as Is Catholicism about to break into three? Pope Says he Prays U.S.-Led Schism Can Be Thwarted
Note that the above divisions are mostly among those who hold to a supreme substantial transcendent standard and basic rules of interpretation. Such usually have substantial agreement but since they are committed to doctrine then they have the most manifest disputes, as was the case of Congregatio de Auxiliis:
Finally, after twenty years of public and private discussion, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, was not reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis
However, liberal RCs do not make as much noise as those committed to doctrine, and likewise under the vast umbrella called Protestantism then perhaps only about half actually believe in the Bible as the as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority. And those who in contrast do most strongly esteem Scripture thusly testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
And while this does not excuse the real divisions btwn such (which are primarily 3, that of Arminianism vs Calvinism; Cessationism versus continuationism, and OSAS (Once saved always saved and Perseverance of the saints) vs
They cannot be all God’s Truth any more than that of Catholicism can be, nor that of Catholics. Consider the various types of Catholics your own church has, based upon their interpretation of what official RC teaching (the interpreter) is and means. Which is a result of they actions of the very solution to disunity, that of looking to the RC magisterium. For while tradRCs attack "Bible Christians" for their disunity due to conflicting interpretations of it, yet their interpreter is neither comprehensive nor without need or possibility of interpretation. Thus as one poster wryly remarked,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
As one of your own lists them:
There are:
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren't members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner
(NOTE: Church Militant may have changed its position recently to be more directly in opposition to the Pope but I haven't kept track.)
A web site popular among "RadTrad" RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/ and which sums up the situation by saying,
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.
Thus we have articles such as Is Catholicism about to break into three? Pope Says he Prays U.S.-Led Schism Can Be Thwarted
Note that the above divisions are mostly among those who hold to a supreme substantial transcendent standard and basic rules of interpretation. Such usually have substantial agreement but since they are committed to doctrine then they have the most manifest disputes, as was the case of Congregatio de Auxiliis:
Finally, after twenty years of public and private discussion, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, was not reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis
However, liberal RCs do not make as much noise as those committed to doctrine, and likewise under the vast umbrella called Protestantism then perhaps only about half actually believe in the Bible as the as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority. And those who in contrast do most strongly esteem Scripture thusly testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
And while this does not excuse the real divisions btwn such (which are primarily 3, that of Arminianism vs Calvinism; Cessationism versus continuationism, and OSAS (Once saved always saved and Perseverance of the saints) vs
vs conditional security and the body of Christ today comes short of the purity, power, passion, probity and unity of the NT church under manifest apostles who held to Scripture as the sure supreme standard, and ideally there should be a central magisterium (which Rome is an argument against), but I think that what we had in classic evangelical faith (at its height maybe around 1890) is the closest to it.