Questions Concerning Catholic Church Teachings

[bippy123]

The early Christians never taught as Paul said for us to be the judge. The ones who are given the authority to interpret scripture was the church and according to scripture and sacred tradition. The early Christians didnt tell us to listen to anyone, they specifically told us to listen to the authoritative interpretation of the apostles , the apostolic fathers and the church fathers which were all chosen before them.
An unbroken line of apostolic succession which the Catholic Church has.
Does your church have this unbroken line of apostolic succession .

The Orthodox church can make such claims also of course, as can any church that DOES have a clear line of succession with the apostles ( which every denomination claims to have I think).
Where does the Holy Spirit come into play then?

Actually this does not compute Paul because of many factors . Did any church have the authority to decide on the canon of scripture? Only the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible. This refutes 99% of the churches out there today, and up until 1054 there was only one Christian Church and that was the Catholic Church. Every other church split from the original Christian Church that was the Catholic Church so they couldn't possibly have a direct line of successors all the way from the beginning to modern times can they.

The orthodox split from the Catholic Church came in 1054 and was much more a political split then a doctrinal split.
Throughout the early years of the church the church in Rome was given primacy over the other Churches.
The church in Rome was the one who told the African synod that the book of Hebrews was God inspired and therefore belonged in the bible.
The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox Church to be the second lung of the same body, and don't be surprised to see those 2 churches heal their wounds and become one again , maybe in our lifetime as they have been in talks about this for a while now. The appointment of pope Francis was the first time that had the orthodox patriarch attend this.
All it's gonna take for them to get together is for some very cool heads and loving hearts to prevail.
For me to marry an orthodox girl would take a special dispensation from my bishop and her bishop and its done.

[jlay]

Bippy,
First of all, I would ask, are you claiming Ignatius' words as God breathed?
Second, i can read the same quote..,,,
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

,,,and come to a different conclusion. Notice that they obstain from prayer as well. Why, because they didn't believe in the bodily resurrection of christ. Most important in the context is to ask what did Ignatius literally intend to communicate. The context is clear that he wished to address Gnostics who denied the physical truths of these things. Prooftexting Ignatius is no better than prooftexting scripture. Your presumptions are that Ignatius is arguing for transubstantiation. And thus, you handle the text in that way. You start with a conclusion and then look for prooftexts to back it up. This is also how much error has crept into scriptural interpretation.

Ignatius says in chapter 5, “some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does anyone profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection

Of course if you wanna interprete things personally you can deny almost anything in the bible ad make it sound to your own personal beliefs. Don't Mormons and jehovas witnesses have their own interpretations also.

This is a strawman as is much of your post. I don't discount all tradition, not at all. Although I also do not inadvertently weaken, or even at times appear to attack scripture by elevating tradition, which is always the way the argument comes across to me. There is always a proper way to interpret, and that is not tied to instituions but of sound reason and logic. Certainly, the institution can and did empoy those methods. Likely more often than not. But let's not forget that it is your personal personal belief to follow the RCC interpetation. And the facts remain, that the matter and terms or transubstantiation didn't actually come into effect until hundreds and hundreds of years later.

The power to bind and loose wasnt given to every Tom and Harry , Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the apostles, and contrary to what Protestants believe, Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the good news, not wrote a book.the bible even says that if all that Jesus had done were to be written down we won't have enough books to hold them

Yes he did. But you, like every other RCC is conflating that to something it is not. If you look at the succession of events, you will notice that God later appointed Paul as apostle. Why? Did he just forget something? No.

Of all the quotes it's interesting that you site James 4:5. Where does the spirit dwell? In Vatican city? No. It dwells in each individual believer. It is nothing but religion that says we cannot trust who we are in Christ, but must return to structure and religous hierarchy. That system was already in effect. Did it stand? No.

Actually this does not compute Paul because of many factors . Did any church have the authority to decide on the canon of scripture? Only the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible.

Last I checked, the Israelites had a pretty big role in it. You know, the ones who were in apostasy and had the Kingdom taken from them.

[PaulSacramento]

Lets not forget that trusting in an established hierarchy and tradition is hat got the Israelites in trouble too.

[Byblos]

Lets not forget that trusting in an established hierarchy and tradition is hat got the Israelites in trouble too.

The very definition of strawman.

[PaulSacramento]

Lets not forget that trusting in an established hierarchy and tradition is hat got the Israelites in trouble too.

The very definition of strawman.

Yet true, nevertheless.

[Philip]

Of the titles used to refer to the head of the Catholic Church are "Pope," "Holy Father," "Vicar of Christ," and "Sovereign Pontiff." Scripturally, not once does Scripture ever apply any of these titles to any man. Catholic teaching asserts that the Papacy was Scripturally established in Matthew 16:18-19: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Despite what these verses may seem to imply, one cannot make a doctrine from ANY Scripture if its meaning is not confirmed and re-enforced via a comprehensive examination of other Scriptures.

The foundation “rock” of the church is Jesus himself. Peter actually confirms this in Acts 4:10-12, when referring to Jesus, he says, “He is the STONE you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” And while Peter was a key figure in the early church, nowhere in the New Testament is he ever given primary authority over it.

Not only does the Bible not show Peter to have any unique authority over the entire church, it also doesn’t indicate this to be true of any other successor or subsequent Bishop. Additionally, the New Testament clearly shows that any authority given Peter was SHARED by other apostles as well (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that it was also given to the local churches (see Titus 2:15 and 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Corinthians 13:10, and Matthew 18:15-19). And despite the Roman Catholic Church’s assertion that Peter was the first “Bishop of Rome,” there is not one Scriptural reference to ever geographically place him there.

Although the New Testament never establishes any ONE authority over the church (except for God/Jesus), it does specifically indicate that the writings of both Peter AND Paul are to be received as and equal to Scripture. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter indicates that God gave revelations to Paul that he himself was NOT given, and he further identifies Paul’s inspired writings as Scripture. Interestingly, Paul wrote about ten times the volume of New Testament writings as Peter did.

Scripture never establishes a supreme church office of authority to be passed down to ANY successors. The ONLY authority God ordains for the church as a whole is Scripture itself (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:10-12). And why, if PETER was the head of the church, does Paul confront and rebuke him in Galatians 2:11-16, over Peter’s siding with Judaizers, those Jewish Christians who were heretically insisting that Gentiles must first conform to Jewish laws before being accepted as fellow Christians. Verse 8 of this passage shows that God was equally at work in the ministries of both Paul and Peter – Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. And at the first Church Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), in which all of the Apostles were present, including Peter and Paul, it is James who makes the final decision for the council. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter ever assert that he is head of the church. In fact, in 1 Peter 5:1, written some 30 years after the Resurrection, Peter describes himself as a mere “fellow elder.”

Probably the strongest evidence from Scripture, that Peter, nor anyone else, was to be head of the church, comes from the scene of the Last Supper. Luke 22 states that after Jesus had revealed to his disciples he was about to be betrayed, “a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.” As Jesus knew he was soon to leave his disciples behind to build His church, and as the question of leadership had been raised, what better moment to settle the matter of who would be His church’s earthly leader and ultimate decision-maker? What better time to announce, "Pete's my man!" Yet, not only is Peter not coronated for such an honor, neither are any of the others. In fact, Christ makes it clear that His organizational flowchart is unlike all earthly business models. He names no “CEO,” and even says “you are not to be like that.” What Jesus describes is an organic body in which leadership is shared and based upon His established spiritual principles, in which “the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.”

Unlike any other earthly organization, Scripture reveals that the authority in God’s church was not to be derived by the teachings or pronouncements of any MAN, but from Scripture itself (1 Timothy 3:16-17): “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” In fact, in Acts 17:11, the Bible gives an example in which Paul’s teachings were examined as to their faithfulness and agreement with those found in Scripture: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” If anyone - church leader, pastor, bishop, Pope, etc. – has teachings that are inconsistent with those found in Scripture, they are to be rejected.

[bippy123]

Bippy,
First of all, I would ask, are you claiming Ignatius' words as God breathed?
Second, i can read the same quote..,,,
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

,,,and come to a different conclusion. Notice that they obstain from prayer as well. Why, because they didn't believe in the bodily resurrection of christ. Most important in the context is to ask what did Ignatius literally intend to communicate. The context is clear that he wished to address Gnostics who denied the physical truths of these things. Prooftexting Ignatius is no better than prooftexting scripture. Your presumptions are that Ignatius is arguing for transubstantiation. And thus, you handle the text in that way. You start with a conclusion and then look for prooftexts to back it up. This is also how much error has crept into scriptural interpretation.

Ignatius says in chapter 5, “some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does anyone profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection

Of course if you wanna interprete things personally you can deny almost anything in the bible ad make it sound to your own personal beliefs. Don't Mormons and jehovas witnesses have their own interpretations also.

This is a strawman as is much of your post. I don't discount all tradition, not at all. Although I also do not inadvertently weaken, or even at times appear to attack scripture by elevating tradition, which is always the way the argument comes across to me. There is always a proper way to interpret, and that is not tied to instituions but of sound reason and logic. Certainly, the institution can and did empoy those methods. Likely more often than not. But let's not forget that it is your personal personal belief to follow the RCC interpetation. And the facts remain, that the matter and terms or transubstantiation didn't actually come into effect until hundreds and hundreds of years later.

The power to bind and loose wasnt given to every Tom and Harry , Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the apostles, and contrary to what Protestants believe, Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the good news, not wrote a book.the bible even says that if all that Jesus had done were to be written down we won't have enough books to hold them

Yes he did. But you, like every other RCC is conflating that to something it is not. If you look at the succession of events, you will notice that God later appointed Paul as apostle. Why? Did he just forget something? No.

Of all the quotes it's interesting that you site James 4:5. Where does the spirit dwell? In Vatican city? No. It dwells in each individual believer. It is nothing but religion that says we cannot trust who we are in Christ, but must return to structure and religous hierarchy. That system was already in effect. Did it stand? No.

Actually this does not compute Paul because of many factors . Did any church have the authority to decide on the canon of scripture? Only the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible.

Last I checked, the Israelites had a pretty big role in it. You know, the ones who were in apostasy and had the Kingdom taken from them.

Jlay are u claiming Calvin's word as Gods word. No one was claiming ignatius words as Gods words, but you must understand that the bible isn't self interpreting . Ignatius was a student of John the apostle. He taught the early church what was taught to him by John the apostle. What did Jesus say to the apostles? He said whoever hears you hears me. Again jlay I ask you, whose interpretation are you going to go by, the earliest Christianswho were in the position to know exactly what the apostles taught or the reformers who were 1400 years separated from them them. History is on the side of the earliest Christians. When someone taught as doctrine anything contrary to sacred scripture and sacred Tradition (tradition with a capital T) every single time it was pronounced as heresy by the early Christian Church.
Heed the written word and the sacred oral tradition.
The bible never says listen to scripture only.
That was invented 1500 years later.

From the earliest times we saw a church hierarchy from the earliest Christians.
Clement of Rome taught against personal interpretation in the late 1st century as I posted from his writings and for this he wrote that the ordained future church leaders (the bishops, presbyters and deacons to make sure that sacred scripture and sacred tradition are consistent with what the apostles taught them.

Ignatius in 110
Justin martyr
Origen and so on and so on.
They all stressed the importance of following church teachings, the bishops, the magisterium.
If someone didnt what happened throughout early Christian church history?
They were renounced as heretics.
The Arians, the docetists who taught that Jesus's humanity can be separated from his divinity, and this is why I have to disagree with Rick when he claims we should call Mary the mother of Jesus the man and not Jesus the God.
You cannot separate the 2 and the earliest Christians were firm in This belief and that is why the doctrine of the theotokos (Mary the mother of God) was developed at the same time as te doctrine of the trinity.
You can disagree on it if you want but your going against the majority of the early Christians . The Catholic Church gave us the doctrine of the trinity and also the theotokos .

You can't name even one early apostolic father or early church father that believed in private interpretation of scripture.
They would be pulling their hair out if you had come out in the first 3 centuries and tod them that you had the right to interpret scripture the way you personally see fit to.
They would have taken a good look around and saw the thousands of different denominations if they had been alive today and they would have been delirious at what they saw.

We are one in Christ,and this is exactly what the apostles passed on to the apostolic fathers.
Christ said and The gates of hades shall not prevail over this church.

When I was heavily leaning towards becoming an evangelical, I did so because I saw a love and zeal for Christ that I really loved and admired which didn't see in the cradle catholics that I hung out with, and that respect at and admiration will never go away. Catholics need to learn how to fellowship the way evangelicals have and still do.
We are one in the body of Christ.
Brothers and sisters in Christ

[bippy123]

Of the titles used to refer to the head of the Catholic Church are "Pope," "Holy Father," "Vicar of Christ," and "Sovereign Pontiff." Scripturally, not once does Scripture ever apply any of these titles to any man. Catholic teaching asserts that the Papacy was Scripturally established in Matthew 16:18-19: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Despite what these verses may seem to imply, one cannot make a doctrine from ANY Scripture if its meaning is not confirmed and re-enforced via a comprehensive examination of other Scriptures.

The foundation “rock” of the church is Jesus himself. Peter actually confirms this in Acts 4:10-12, when referring to Jesus, he says, “He is the STONE you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” And while Peter was a key figure in the early church, nowhere in the New Testament is he ever given primary authority over it.

Not only does the Bible not show Peter to have any unique authority over the entire church, it also doesn’t indicate this to be true of any other successor or subsequent Bishop. Additionally, the New Testament clearly shows that any authority given Peter was SHARED by other apostles as well (Ephesians 2:19-20) and that it was also given to the local churches (see Titus 2:15 and 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Corinthians 13:10, and Matthew 18:15-19). And despite the Roman Catholic Church’s assertion that Peter was the first “Bishop of Rome,” there is not one Scriptural reference to ever geographically place him there.

Although the New Testament never establishes any ONE authority over the church (except for God/Jesus), it does specifically indicate that the writings of both Peter AND Paul are to be received as and equal to Scripture. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter indicates that God gave revelations to Paul that he himself was NOT given, and he further identifies Paul’s inspired writings as Scripture. Interestingly, Paul wrote about ten times the volume of New Testament writings as Peter did.

Scripture never establishes a supreme church office of authority to be passed down to ANY successors. The ONLY authority God ordains for the church as a whole is Scripture itself (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 17:10-12). And why, if PETER was the head of the church, does Paul confront and rebuke him in Galatians 2:11-16, over Peter’s siding with Judaizers, those Jewish Christians who were heretically insisting that Gentiles must first conform to Jewish laws before being accepted as fellow Christians. Verse 8 of this passage shows that God was equally at work in the ministries of both Paul and Peter – Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews. And at the first Church Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), in which all of the Apostles were present, including Peter and Paul, it is James who makes the final decision for the council. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter ever assert that he is head of the church. In fact, in 1 Peter 5:1, written some 30 years after the Resurrection, Peter describes himself as a mere “fellow elder.”

Probably the strongest evidence from Scripture, that Peter, nor anyone else, was to be head of the church, comes from the scene of the Last Supper. Luke 22 states that after Jesus had revealed to his disciples he was about to be betrayed, “a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.” As Jesus knew he was soon to leave his disciples behind to build His church, and as the question of leadership had been raised, what better moment to settle the matter of who would be His church’s earthly leader and ultimate decision-maker? What better time to announce, "Pete's my man!" Yet, not only is Peter not coronated for such an honor, neither are any of the others. In fact, Christ makes it clear that His organizational flowchart is unlike all earthly business models. He names no “CEO,” and even says “you are not to be like that.” What Jesus describes is an organic body in which leadership is shared and based upon His established spiritual principles, in which “the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.”

Unlike any other earthly organization, Scripture reveals that the authority in God’s church was not to be derived by the teachings or pronouncements of any MAN, but from Scripture itself (1 Timothy 3:16-17): “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” In fact, in Acts 17:11, the Bible gives an example in which Paul’s teachings were examined as to their faithfulness and agreement with those found in Scripture: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” If anyone - church leader, pastor, bishop, Pope, etc. – has teachings that are inconsistent with those found in Scripture, they are to be rejected.

Philip, just because the bible doesn't specifically use those words doesn't mean that the meanings aren't in there.
Find me one place in all of scripture that says the TRINITY in there. It just isn't there but it doesn't mean that the teachings aren't there.
The vicar of Christ is Christ's ambassador. It doesn't mean the pope is God. He is just a man just as Peter was a man who was given the authority to bind and loose. What did Christ tell him? Whatsoever you shall make loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven. How can anyone just skim by those verses and not place importance to them.
This is why the early church fathers said Peter was the vicar of Christ and that authority was given to him by Christ himself.
The only way you can ignore the role of Peter in the church is to erase the first 1500 years of Christian history and do away with the writings of the early Christian church and leap straight from Christ to Martin Luther
It was precisely because I started to read the early church history that I stayed catholic, and believe me I was very close to converting away from the Catholic Church until this point lead me back.

[RickD]

Bippy wrote:
The Arians, the docetists who taught that Jesus's humanity can be separated from his divinity, and this is why I have to disagree with Rick when he claims we should call Mary the mother of Jesus the man and not Jesus the God.

Bippy, just to clarify, I didn't say that we should call Mary "the mother of Jesus the man". "Mary, mother of Jesus" is fine with me. Just not, "Mary, Mother of God".
What you wrote above, makes it sound like I think Jesus' two natures can be separated. Or Jesus the man is not Jesus who is God. I don't believe that.

From the link I posted earlier:

God is the origin of His God nature. Mary is the origin of His human nature. Therefore, God is the Father of Jesus Christ's God nature, and Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ's human nature. In Jesus Christ, these natures are united, so that God is His Father and Mary is His mother.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
Remember, you thought you agreed with Jac in regards to my absolute assurance of salvation beliefs. Didn't you see a change of tune in how Jac now sees my belief? Think about it Byblos. Listen to the HS. He will lead you into all truth.

Byblos wrote:
It sounds like you're saying either you changed your mind or Jac changed his so I fail to see the connection. But I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to, can you point me to it?

Byblos, it starts on page 4 of this thread, with Jac misunderstanding my belief in his post near the bottom of the page:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... e&start=45

And I guess it ends on page 7, where Jac finally understands what I'm saying, and his response here:

RickD wrote:
No, that's not logical. I agree with the first possibility. One falls away, and is still saved, preserving absolute assurance.
But the second I disagree with. One who was never saved cannot fall away. He cannot fall away from something he never had. So the second logical possibility would be that a person was never saved, and never had assurance(positional). Still preserving absolute assurance, because one who was never saved, never had absolute assurance. If one is not saved, his feelings of assurance are neither here nor there. The unsaved do not have positional absolute assurance. Also, a believer doesn't have to have feelings of assurance, to have positional assurance.

Jac wrote:
Okay, I think I'm following you.

Let's say that Joe believes and falls away. You say, "I can't judge his salvation." Fine, I agree. You go on to say, "Because I don't know whether or not he really believed." You would say, under a FG argument, that IF he believed, then he is still saved; IF he did not believe, he is not saved. The question at this point is strictly and only whether or not he originally believed.

[RickD]

Bippy,

I need to apologize. I'm having a difficult time keeping up with all your posts. I know you had some questions for me in there, and I just got lost. I don't want you to think I'm avoiding your questions. I can try to go back and find your questions to me, or you can just post what you really would like me to answer again.

Sometimes it's difficult for me to walk and chew gum at the same time, never mind trying to keep up with your very in depth posts.

[bippy123]

Bippy,
First of all, I would ask, are you claiming Ignatius' words as God breathed?
Second, i can read the same quote..,,,
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).

,,,and come to a different conclusion. Notice that they obstain from prayer as well. Why, because they didn't believe in the bodily resurrection of christ. Most important in the context is to ask what did Ignatius literally intend to communicate. The context is clear that he wished to address Gnostics who denied the physical truths of these things. Prooftexting Ignatius is no better than prooftexting scripture. Your presumptions are that Ignatius is arguing for transubstantiation. And thus, you handle the text in that way. You start with a conclusion and then look for prooftexts to back it up. This is also how much error has crept into scriptural interpretation.

Ignatius says in chapter 5, “some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does anyone profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection

Of course if you wanna interprete things personally you can deny almost anything in the bible ad make it sound to your own personal beliefs. Don't Mormons and jehovas witnesses have their own interpretations also.

This is a strawman as is much of your post. I don't discount all tradition, not at all. Although I also do not inadvertently weaken, or even at times appear to attack scripture by elevating tradition, which is always the way the argument comes across to me. There is always a proper way to interpret, and that is not tied to instituions but of sound reason and logic. Certainly, the institution can and did empoy those methods. Likely more often than not. But let's not forget that it is your personal personal belief to follow the RCC interpetation. And the facts remain, that the matter and terms or transubstantiation didn't actually come into effect until hundreds and hundreds of years later.

The power to bind and loose wasnt given to every Tom and Harry , Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the apostles, and contrary to what Protestants believe, Jesus commissioned the apostles to preach the good news, not wrote a book.the bible even says that if all that Jesus had done were to be written down we won't have enough books to hold them

Yes he did. But you, like every other RCC is conflating that to something it is not. If you look at the succession of events, you will notice that God later appointed Paul as apostle. Why? Did he just forget something? No.

Of all the quotes it's interesting that you site James 4:5. Where does the spirit dwell? In Vatican city? No. It dwells in each individual believer. It is nothing but religion that says we cannot trust who we are in Christ, but must return to structure and religous hierarchy. That system was already in effect. Did it stand? No.

Actually this does not compute Paul because of many factors . Did any church have the authority to decide on the canon of scripture? Only the Catholic Church decided on the canon of the bible.

Last I checked, the Israelites had a pretty big role in it. You know, the ones who were in apostasy and had the Kingdom taken from them.

Jlay thefact that they abstain from prayer is showing you how important that the eucharistic teaching is as he compares it to prayer.
Jlay your saying the isrealites had the authority to put the bible together.
The apostles had that authority when Jesus came as he gave the power to bind and loose to them.
Jlay are you saying that Jesus didnt establish a hierarchal structure? the first 1500 years of Christian history says absolutley not.

The fact that people left the church doesnt negate its authority at all. It speaks more at the people who left his Church.

The holy spirit is with all Christians Jlay, but the holy spirits job isnt to interpret scripture. If it was Jesus never would have given the authority to bind and loose to his 12 but to every person. Dont confuse the 2. There will always be bad apples in every church but that doesnt negate the authority of the historic church of Christ.

[bippy123]

"""This is a strawman as is much of your post. I don't discount all tradition, not at all. Although I also do not inadvertently weaken, or even at times appear to attack scripture by elevating tradition, which is always the way the argument comes across to me. There is always a proper way to interpret, and that is not tied to instituions but of sound reason and logic. Certainly, the institution can and did empoy those methods. Likely more often than not. But let's not forget that it is your personal personal belief to follow the RCC interpetation. And the facts remain, that the matter and terms or transubstantiation didn't actually come into effect until hundreds and hundreds of years later.""
Actually its not Jlay, sacred tradition is very important as well. Jesus never commissioned anyone to write a bible. Also transubstantiation was believed in the early Church. Jesus himself to chew and gnaw on his flesh. I have showed you this a few times allready and you still wont admit it. Trogo means to literally chew and gnaw on something. There was nothing figurative in the koine greek about that word. Please point me one verse in scripture where the koine greek word trogo was used that didnt mean to literally chew and gnaw on something. There isnt.

This is biblical and just because they didnt define it fully yet doesnt mean that they wouldnt later. The doctrine of the trinity took over 250 years for the church to define Jlay. How come you accept that doctrine and dont accept the eucharist. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you read what I wrote before about trogo and the consistency of all the early Christians that were unanimous in this.
If you want to consider scripture and early Christian history as strawmen that so be it. early Christian history is tough for non catholics because it points compellingly to the catholic Church.

And actually its not my personal belief to follow the RCC interpretation. There was no early church that was established by Christ but the catholic church, and again how can you know which scriptures to elevate without the one holy and apostolic Church that was given the authority by Christ himself to bind and loose to put the bible together for you to read today? on whose authority to do accept the bible?
You accept the bible on the authority of the Catholic Church every time you pick it up to read it Jlay. Scripture and sacred tradition go together. without sacred scripture we would be in total chaos as to how to interpret Scripture > peter even says in scripture that some verses are very hard to understand. Thank God we have sacred scripture and scared tradition, and without sacred tradition we wouldnt even have the doctrine of the trinity to understand. Another Doctrine that came from the Catholic Church.

Does every church have apostolic Tradition? the answer is obviously no because there was only the Catholic Church for the first 1054 years of Christian Church History. I dont personally interpret anything myself. I know my Christian History and I know my early Church history and there was only one church for that period. every other church that came after was a branch off the original Church of Christ the catholic church. I want to know what the earliest Christians were taught by the apostles to believe. These early apostolic fathers were ordained by the apostles and the holy spirit was passed on to them to give them the authority to interpet scripture authoritatively. If you want to ignore the authority that Christ gave to his original Church you can, But I wont.
To each their own Jlay

[Silvertusk]

How do you answer these quotes from your own pope's...

Salvation Only Through Mary
“The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has
committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know
that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is
His will: that we obtain everything through Mary. Sweet heart of Mary, be my
salvation!” Pope Pius IX

“For, since it is the will of Divine Providence that we should have the God-Man
through Mary, there is no other way for us to receive Christ except from her hands.”
Pope Pius X

“He will not taste death forever who, in his dying moments, has recourse to the
Blessed Virgin Mary. What will it cost you to save us? Has not Jesus placed in your
hands all the treasures of His grace and mercy? You sit crowned as Queen at the
right hand of your Son: your dominion reaches as far as the heavens, and to you are
subject the earth and all creatures dwelling thereon. Your dominion reaches even
down into the abyss of Hell, and you alone O Mary, save us from the hands of Satan.”
Pope Pius XI

“Nothing comes to us except through the mediation of Mary, for such is the will
of God. O Virgin Most Holy, no one abounds in the knowledge of God except through
thee; no one O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee! Every one of
the multitudes, therefore, whom the evil of calamitous circumstances has stolen
away from Catholic unity, must be born again to Christ by that same Mother whom
God has endowed with a never-failing fertility to bring forth a holy people.” Pope
Leo XIII

“Mary, not one of thy devout servants has ever perished; may I, too, be saved!”
Pope Benedict XV

Salvation Only Through The Catholic Church
“Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins.” Pope
Boniface VIII

“We believe with our hearts and confess with our lips but one Church, not that of
heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which we
believe that no one is saved. “ Pope Innocent III

“He who is separated from the Catholic Church will not have life. He who is
separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct
may seem otherwise, will never enjoy eternal life, and the wrath of God remains on
him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ...All
those who are separated from the holy universal Church will not be saved.” Pope
Gregory XVI

“It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no
one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does
not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside
the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in
their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation.
Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God.” Pope Pius IX

“Those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Church
alone is the Body of Christ...and if separated from the Body of Christ he is not one of
His members, nor is he fed by His Spirit.” Pope Paul VI

“No one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless
he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV

Salvation Only Through Popes
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the
salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope
Boniface VIII

“Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign
Pontiff, and Only if they be united to him can men be saved.” Pope John XXIII

“Those who are obstinate toward the authority of the Church and the Roman
Pontiff... cannot obtain eternal salvation.” Pope Pius IX

How can the pope's be infalliable if some of the above goes directly against the teaching of scripture?

[RickD]

The Catholic Church says salvation is only through their church. Scripture says salvation is by faith in who Christ is, and what he did. Does anyone else see the problem with a group who sets itself up as the only authority by which scripture can be interpreted, and by which salvation can come?