Part of non Catholics understanding is that they only accept what they read in the Bible after 7 books were removed by Luther.
Which falsehood further testifies to your indoctrination in the propaganda that you blindly parrot, whereas it is well evidenced that rather than Luther removing 7 books from a indisputable settled canon, in reality scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
And that the 39 book OT is the most ancient canon, being that mostly likely held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. Thus Catholic sources themselves testify that, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)
Now you can longer be excused due to ignorant faith in RC apologetics.
And then they reject or try to change meanings of God’s Truth or even deny the Truth that doesn’t meet their protestant doctrines.
And then they reject or try to change meanings of God’s Truth or even deny the Truth that doesn’t meet their protestant doctrines.
Which is simply based upon your prevailing logical fallacy, that of presuming what is not and cannot be proved, that "God’s Truth" is whatever Rome says, since Rome declared she possesses ensured veracity, but which Truth she has changed from what the NT manifestly believed.
Catholic understand that Jesus and the Apostles passed down the teachings of Jesus in the oral tradition which continues today.
I know what Catholic understand, which does not make it true, while as shown and ignored while you parrot propaganda, 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;
And thus as abundantly evidenced , as written and established, 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)
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
And 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; 1828, etc.)
Catholic authors wrote the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament (inspired by God)
That is patently absurd, a bombastic assertion you can only imagine was the case, for as said and shown and ignored, distinctive Catholic teachings 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).
And if Catholic authors wrote the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament they they did a very poor job, for it would not have been hard to put a sentence in the numerous books describing believers praying to a created being in Heaven, men or angels, and or priests confecting the Eucharist and offering it as a sacrifice for sins and eaten in order to obtain spiritual life (interpretive of the gospels), rather than by the hearing of the nourishing word of God, (1Tim. 4:6) being milk and meat, (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12,14) and exhorting the church to submit to Peter as its corporate supreme head, and baptizing infants, etc. etc. Instead, you can only wish this is what the the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive word of God reveals the NT church believed.
and all the books were organized into the Bible by Church councils.
Which includes those penned and preserved and passed down by the Jews, with the Scribes and Pharisees being magisterial stewards of them, thus if being instrumental in this work means submission to all such instruments, then the NT church should have submitted to the judgments of the Scribes and Pharisees as to faith in a certain itinerant prophet and Preacher from Galilee.
Non Catholics try to tell us only to believe in inspired Bible.
Inaccurate. Non Catholics tell us a lot of things we do not believe, but that Scripture the only wholly God-inspired and substantive word of God and thus should be the sure and supreme standard on faith and morals is indisputable.
Somehow the protestants or “bible christians” (name change came into existence after the invention of the printing press and were able to promote alternative teachings contrary to Jesus Christ and aided by Satan. Not so, for there were always “bible christians,” from the disciples who believed on the Lord Jesus who substantiated His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and who thus "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself," (Luke 24:27) and "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" [not oral tradition], (Luke 24:45) and those who likewise believed the words of Christ and the apostles as being subject to testing by established Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
However, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby - neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils can claim to do. As the classic Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm Moreover, unlike the canon of Scripture, there simply is no infallible list of all infallible Catholic teachings, papal or conciliar, thus leading to debate, and unlike Scripture, even in formal papal teachings it is not the arguments, reasoning and evidences invoked for a solemnly defined teaching that are held to be infallible, but only "the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) In contrast all Scripture is wholly inspired of God, while Catholics debate where a infallible teaching begins and ends as well as &to some degree) the meanings of such.
Non Catholics ignore or dispute the words of Jesus. Again, using the term "non-Catholics" is a invalid term and thus you are presenting a faulty argument, since you are not simply debating non-Catholics, but those of a faith which, like those who profess to be like the noble Bereans in Acts 17:11 who subjected the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching to testing by Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
John 6:52-58; Matt 16:18-19; among many other verses.
Catholics also debate the former, since they invoke John 6:53,54 which if taken literally as meaning the Catholic "Real Presence" excludes those who reject that as having spiritual and eternal life, while also affirming Lumen Gentium (if they do) which broadly affirms properly baptized Prots as being born again Christians.
As for Matt 16:18-19, Catholics also debate this, with some arguing that "this rock" refers to Peter and not the faith of Peter, while others agree it is the rock was the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The Orthodox also lay claim to the title "Catholic" and from https://www.oca.org/questions/history/on-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church we have this:
In Matthew 16:18, the word “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith, and not to Peter himself, despite the fact that Peter/rock is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic [cephas] and Greek [petros]. As we read in 1 Corinthians 10:4, “...they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,” Who alone is the very foundation, or true Rock, upon which stands the Church. It is on Jesus Christ, the Rock, that the Church’s unchanging faith and confession is firmly rooted.
Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9” (CCC 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
How does the Cardinal see in Mary a warrant for the “equilibrium of faith”?
All of which fallible arguments with their wishful, vain extrapolation are a poor excuse for a utter lack of testimony for a required belief in a doctrine that that the NT church of Scripture manifestly did not believe in, and all your prolix propaganda is a failure to warrant it, and the hyper exaltation of Mary leaves Catholicism guilty of thinking of moral far, far, far above that which is written, which 1 Co. 4:6 reproves.
Rome’s New and Novel Concept of Tradition Living Tradition: (Viva Voce – Whatever We Say)
While I appreciate your reply, your answers for the most part are an attempt to ignore the meaning of God’s Truth and misrepresent history. You keep on saying the same old same old protestant versions and misrepresent God’s Truth. To me your version is not truthful and just made up to fit the protestant doctrine.
Today’s Gospel is especially appropriate:
“Because knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven
has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.
To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich;
from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
This is why I speak to them in parables, because
they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, (Matt 13:10-17)
Sola Scriptura and SolaFides doctrines are not biblical.
While your comment that the Catholic Church recognizes baptized Protestants as christian and members of Christ Body, many (catholics included) may still be in mortal sin which destroys the relationship with God and risking their salvation unless they repent and confess. Again the Church is not the judge of a person’s soul but wants to help all reach eternal life with God.
The Catechism (once again quoting Lumen Gentium) summarizes all this as follows:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
Concerning the books of the Bible:
In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septuagint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic.
Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-defend-the-deuterocanonicals
The Catholic faith key tenets include Peter as the Pope And the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Are expected to be believed by all Catholics and not subject to debate.
A baptized Catholic that rejects the Catholic faith, rejects Jesus. (Luke 10:16) They always have the opportunity to repent and confess and do penance.
I do not know why you left the Catholic faith, nor do I understand why protestant doctrine appeals to many Catholics that have rejected the Catholic Church. Perhaps not being required to go to weekly Mass or annual confession or able to accept an alternate false version of God’s Truth or the promise of their word only once that they are guaranteed salvation?
There is a hatred of the Catholic Church and not accepting that Jesus established His Church- The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church followed Jesus command over the centuries to preach and baptize all nations, while the protestant versions were founded by men about 500 years ago.
I do believe that many Catholics are betting their salvation on the false word of men or their own false beliefs instead of faith in God’s Truth.