If You Believe Your Denomination Is...

[Illuminator]

If you don't know what tradition I am referring to, you are asleep.

Still waiting for the tradition you are referring to.

 

[Brakelite]

Jesus did not condemn all tradition. Just the man made ones. Sola scriptura and sola fide are man made traditions, not found in the Bible or taught anywhere for 16 centuries. "Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word
You haven't informed me of anything, just a stupid blind assertion. And you have no names of those "hunted by the church". Until you come up with ONE name, you are just blowing forum flatulence.
The Bible repeatedly teaches the Church is infallible in doctrine, not behavior. You are incapable of making the distinction.
More unproven assertions. More failure to identify what heresies the church opposed. The Church shifted from being persecuted to being protected. The facts of history is your enemy.
The first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans. None of your "Bible Christian" sites or media of any kind ever mention this. It's Protestant censorship.
No. The state appealed to the Church to resolve the Arian crisis because it was tearing apart the social order, and again, you fail to name ONE Arian or Nestorian who was persecuted. Excommunication is NOT persecution. No, that is Baptist mythology. You have no reliable historical evidence to support this myth. The Church and the State being one and the same is anti-Catholic hate propaganda with no evidence. Another falsehood you can't prove. All "Catholic concepts" are available free on line. What is the Catholic concept of the two swords? If you are referring the Just War Doctrine, which you know nothing about, do your homework before making so many ridiculous blind assertions.

The LIES of Dave Hunt Exposed

ANTI-CATHOLIC MYTHS AND LIES: #1 EMPEROR CONSTANTINE FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

You've covered a great deal of ground in a desperate attempt to defend yourself firing pot shots at anyone you can imagine has set up shop to criticise your church yet you still don't know which particular tradition I am speaking of. Your bird shot approach isn't hitting much.

 

[ChristisGod]

That is an opinion contradicted by the facts of history. Pitting Scripture against true tradition is a man made Protestant tradition. I challenge you to name these errors and quote the so called errors of the ECF. This forces you to scrape the bottom of the barrel searching for quotes that went against the general consensus, and ignore everything else from the same CF.

Scripture alone was used by every heretic in the patristic period to assert their false doctrines, and the deciding factor in serious controversies such as the Arian and Nestorian controversies was the appeal to what had always been believed (tradition). You have no clue as to what true tradition means, so you are forced to make it up to fit your man made system, and the Protestant tradition of a non-infallible church.
True tradition includes the Authority of Scripture, they are inseparable like 2 wings of a bird.
True tradition also includes the authentic beliefs and practices found in the ante-Nicene historic church, and because not all of it was recorded in Scripture does not mean it is inferior. That's your man made tradition.

Without the tradition of the episcopate, there would be no Bible, (which took 3+ centuries to blossom) so your statement is contradictory, self defeating and ridiculous.

Can you show me where the church in scripture is referred to as " INFALLIBLE " ?

 

[Brakelite]

Still waiting for the tradition you are referring to.

Far be it from me to disturb your sleep.

 

[Enoch111]

Where is your evidence that errors were incorporated in the writings of the ECF’s?

Let's take just one doctrine which is not found in the Bible (not even in Maccabees) -- the doctrine of Purgatory. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967: "The Fathers in general are clear in their affirmation of the existence of purgatory...'There can be no doubt, then, that the widespread belief of the early Church, as shown by many of the Fathers (see Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ephraem, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory the Great...) and as evidenced by the liturgy, demanded the existence of a state after death in which the souls of the just would be fully purified from any remains of sin before entering heaven." (NCE, volume 11, page 1035-6)'"
The Church Fathers on the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

It is would appear that Origen and Clement of Alexandria adopted some Gnostic ideas and began to teach about Purgatory:"Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin).... (page 54,55)

Since the Bible is the Word of God, we must take it as our final authority. You will not find the word "purgatory" in the Bible. The Catholic claim that its origin is in Maccabees and relates to "praying for the dead" still does not show the word "purgatory". That is merely an inference. In other words it is a Catholic fiction promoted by the ECF.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE?
1. Throughout the Old Testament, we are shown that the souls and spirits of those who died (both righteous and unrighteous) went to Sheol -- the region of departed spirits. Unfortunately the KJV translators applied the words "the grave" and "hell" to this region INCORRECTLY (and have thereby created a lot of confusion).

2. Christ revealed to us that Sheol and Hades are (1) identical, (2) in the heart of the earth or the lower parts of the earth (meaning near the core of the earth), (3) both the righteous and unrighteous go there immediately after death, (4) they are separated by a wide chasm which cannot be crossed, (5) the unrighteous dead are in torment, and (6) the righteous dead are at peace in the metaphorical "Abraham's bosom".

3. Again the KJV translators incorrectly applied the word "hell" to both Hades and Tartarus (which is reserved strictly for the angels which sinned before the Flood), and again caused a lot of confusion.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ also clearly taught that there is another region which is called Gehenna (Hell) and it is in fact the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Unrepentant sinners will eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire. Christ warned about Hell many times.

5. The Bible reveals that upon His resurrection, Christ took all the OT saints out of Sheol/Hades and brought them to Heaven (the New Jerusalem). And that ever since His ascension, all the NT saints go to Heaven as soon as they die (beginning with Stephen). See Hebrews 12:22-24.

6. There is no such place as purgatory ever mentioned in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. It is not even found in the Catholic bibles. Indeed there is no intermediate state such as purgatory or limbo according to Scripture.

WHAT DOES MACCABEES SAY ABOUT PURGATORY? NOTHING.
"So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place. And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:38-46 from the Douay-Rheims Bible).

In any event, what do Christians have in common with the Maccabees? Nothing. Even the OT says nothing about praying for the dead, and Maccabees is in the Apocrypha, not the OT.

So Catholics have two options: (1) believe Christ or (2) believe Origen and the ECF. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[historyb]

I BELIEVE IN PURGATORY...[/QUOTE]

"Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age, the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to him?

I believe in Purgatory.

Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on the 'Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory' as that Romish doctrine had then become.....

The right view returns magnificently in Newman's DREAM. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light'. Religion has claimed Purgatory.

Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'

I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will [not] be disgusting and unhallowed."

CS Lewis

 

[Marymog]

Let's take just one doctrine which is not found in the Bible (not even in Maccabees) -- the doctrine of Purgatory. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967: "The Fathers in general are clear in their affirmation of the existence of purgatory...'There can be no doubt, then, that the widespread belief of the early Church, as shown by many of the Fathers (see Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ephraem, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory the Great...) and as evidenced by the liturgy, demanded the existence of a state after death in which the souls of the just would be fully purified from any remains of sin before entering heaven." (NCE, volume 11, page 1035-6)'"
The Church Fathers on the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

It is would appear that Origen and Clement of Alexandria adopted some Gnostic ideas and began to teach about Purgatory:"Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin).... (page 54,55)

Since the Bible is the Word of God, we must take it as our final authority. You will not find the word "purgatory" in the Bible. The Catholic claim that its origin is in Maccabees and relates to "praying for the dead" still does not show the word "purgatory". That is merely an inference. In other words it is a Catholic fiction promoted by the ECF.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE?
1. Throughout the Old Testament, we are shown that the souls and spirits of those who died (both righteous and unrighteous) went to Sheol -- the region of departed spirits. Unfortunately the KJV translators applied the words "the grave" and "hell" to this region INCORRECTLY (and have thereby created a lot of confusion).

2. Christ revealed to us that Sheol and Hades are (1) identical, (2) in the heart of the earth or the lower parts of the earth (meaning near the core of the earth), (3) both the righteous and unrighteous go there immediately after death, (4) they are separated by a wide chasm which cannot be crossed, (5) the unrighteous dead are in torment, and (6) the righteous dead are at peace in the metaphorical "Abraham's bosom".

3. Again the KJV translators incorrectly applied the word "hell" to both Hades and Tartarus (which is reserved strictly for the angels which sinned before the Flood), and again caused a lot of confusion.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ also clearly taught that there is another region which is called Gehenna (Hell) and it is in fact the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Unrepentant sinners will eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire. Christ warned about Hell many times.

5. The Bible reveals that upon His resurrection, Christ took all the OT saints out of Sheol/Hades and brought them to Heaven (the New Jerusalem). And that ever since His ascension, all the NT saints go to Heaven as soon as they die (beginning with Stephen). See Hebrews 12:22-24.

6. There is no such place as purgatory ever mentioned in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. It is not even found in the Catholic bibles. Indeed there is no intermediate state such as purgatory or limbo according to Scripture.

WHAT DOES MACCABEES SAY ABOUT PURGATORY? NOTHING.
"So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place. And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:38-46 from the Douay-Rheims Bible).

In any event, what do Christians have in common with the Maccabees? Nothing. Even the OT says nothing about praying for the dead, and Maccabees is in the Apocrypha, not the OT.

So Catholics have two options: (1) believe Christ or (2) believe Origen and the ECF. You cannot have it both ways.

Nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Will you have no sin on your soul when you die?

The Trinity is not in the Bible.....Many things that Christians believe and practice are not in the Bible.....So what’s your point?

 

[Illuminator]

Let's take just one doctrine which is not found in the Bible (not even in Maccabees) -- the doctrine of Purgatory. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967: "The Fathers in general are clear in their affirmation of the existence of purgatory...'There can be no doubt, then, that the widespread belief of the early Church, as shown by many of the Fathers (see Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ephraem, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory the Great...) and as evidenced by the liturgy, demanded the existence of a state after death in which the souls of the just would be fully purified from any remains of sin before entering heaven." (NCE, volume 11, page 1035-6)'"
The Church Fathers on the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead

It is would appear that Origen and Clement of Alexandria adopted some Gnostic ideas and began to teach about Purgatory:"Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin).... (page 54,55)

Since the Bible is the Word of God, we must take it as our final authority. You will not find the word "purgatory" in the Bible. The Catholic claim that its origin is in Maccabees and relates to "praying for the dead" still does not show the word "purgatory". That is merely an inference. In other words it is a Catholic fiction promoted by the ECF.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE?
1. Throughout the Old Testament, we are shown that the souls and spirits of those who died (both righteous and unrighteous) went to Sheol -- the region of departed spirits. Unfortunately the KJV translators applied the words "the grave" and "hell" to this region INCORRECTLY (and have thereby created a lot of confusion).

2. Christ revealed to us that Sheol and Hades are (1) identical, (2) in the heart of the earth or the lower parts of the earth (meaning near the core of the earth), (3) both the righteous and unrighteous go there immediately after death, (4) they are separated by a wide chasm which cannot be crossed, (5) the unrighteous dead are in torment, and (6) the righteous dead are at peace in the metaphorical "Abraham's bosom".

3. Again the KJV translators incorrectly applied the word "hell" to both Hades and Tartarus (which is reserved strictly for the angels which sinned before the Flood), and again caused a lot of confusion.

4. The Lord Jesus Christ also clearly taught that there is another region which is called Gehenna (Hell) and it is in fact the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Unrepentant sinners will eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire. Christ warned about Hell many times.

5. The Bible reveals that upon His resurrection, Christ took all the OT saints out of Sheol/Hades and brought them to Heaven (the New Jerusalem). And that ever since His ascension, all the NT saints go to Heaven as soon as they die (beginning with Stephen). See Hebrews 12:22-24.

6. There is no such place as purgatory ever mentioned in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. It is not even found in the Catholic bibles. Indeed there is no intermediate state such as purgatory or limbo according to Scripture.

WHAT DOES MACCABEES SAY ABOUT PURGATORY? NOTHING.
"So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the same place. And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:38-46 from the Douay-Rheims Bible).

In any event, what do Christians have in common with the Maccabees? Nothing. Even the OT says nothing about praying for the dead, and Maccabees is in the Apocrypha, not the OT.

So Catholics have two options: (1) believe Christ or (2) believe Origen and the ECF. You cannot have it both ways.

The doctrine of Purgatory originated in Judaism in seedling form, and expanded upon by Jesus and Paul. it is not a Catholic invention. Catholicism fulfils Judaism whereas you guys don't fulfil Judaism in any meaningful sense. The general consensus of the ECF don't contradict Scripture but compliments them, and you have FAILED to prove otherwise.

We go by Sacred Tradition as consistently defined and developed for 2000 years. All your opposition to Sacred Tradition is based on ignorance, prejudice, and re-defining the term to force fit it into your man made system. You refuse to understand the correct definition by ignoring my links, change the subject with multiple topics on every post, then complain I cover too much ground. This makes this discussion with you IMPOSSIBLE because you can't discuss anything reasonably. Stupid baseless insults against the ECF is throwing up a wall of prejudice and bigotry you can't let go of because your stubborn pride won't allow you to be corrected. That's why you keep changing the subject.

 

[Illuminator]

There is no such place as purgatory ever mentioned in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. It is not even found in the Catholic bibles. Indeed there is no intermediate state such as purgatory or limbo according to Scripture.

The words "Trinity" and "Incarnation" are not mentioned in any Bible. Following your logic, the meaning of those terms should be tossed. TEXT without CONTEXT is a PRETEXT.
The BIBLE without the CHURCH is just an EXCUSE.

In any event, what do Christians have in common with the Maccabees? Nothing.

Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 10:22 – the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
1 Cor. 15:29 – if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
Heb. 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
James 2:23 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Rev. 11:19 – the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 – description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:11 – the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 – description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

The Bereans were GREEK Pharisees, and included GREEK Deuterocanonicals in their search of the Scriptures that were rejected by Hellinistic Jews and had done so for 200 years before Christ.

2 Tim. 3:16 – the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

 

[Illuminator]

Since the Bible is the Word of God, we must take it as our final authority.

As already explained, there is nothing final about a multitude of "final authorities". Protestantism is hopelessly divided on the matter of Baptism and that is just one example. "Word of God" appears 80-100 times in the bible, and nowhere does it refer to the written word alone. "our final authority" is an absurd man made tradition. Proof is in the division that such thinking has caused.
Furthermore, in order to support your man made final authority tradition, you have to prove, with the Bible alone,
1)that Sacred Tradition, properly understood (which is never is) AND
2) Teaching Authority, or Magisterium, properly understood (which it never is)
ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR SOUND TEACHING.

 

[Brakelite]

We go by Sacred Tradition as consistently defined and developed for 2000 years.

indeed you do. Which means your religion is a totally different religion to the rest of us. So why are you here?

 

[Illuminator]

indeed you do. Which means your religion is a totally different religion to the rest of us. So why are you here?

consistent
[kənˈsistənt]
ADJECTIVE

1. acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate.

I am here to explain and defend. And expose the numerous lies you keep repeating. You have failed to come to terms with my challenges and continue with stupid insults, as such. Not all members in here share your false histories and fallacious arguments. You have more in common with the made-in-America cults than you are willing to admit. You don't speak for the rest of us.

 

[Marymog]

indeed you do. Which means your religion is a totally different religion to the rest of us. So why are you here?

Hi Backlit,

Are you a member of a Christian denomination?

Curious Mary

 

[historyb]

or even a Christian

 

[Philip James]

indeed you do. Which means your religion is a totally different religion to the rest of us.

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Brother,

while we still draw breath, it is never to late to return to the Feast!

Peace be with you!

 

[Brakelite]

Hi Backlit,

Are you a member of a Christian denomination?

Curious Mary

Absolutely... Which you are fully aware of.
And before you start going off on some tangent, don't miss the point I am making when I say Catholicism is a different religion than the rest. Catholics themselves admit this. It isn't a controversial statement to make, and it isn't insulting. It is a simple matter of fact. Why is it different?
Catholicism, by your own admission, is a form of religion/faith based on what you call sacred tradition. Scripture is interpreted by the magisterium with tradition being the arbiter as to what scripture means, thus if one was to look upon this dispassionately, one could say the magisterium, and not scripture or tradition, is the final authority. Because it is they who make the final decision. You as much admit this yourself many times when you claim the CC is the final authority because, you say, the church is the foundation of truth.

Protestants however are different, again by your own admission, in that Protestants claim scripture alone as the final authority for faith and practice. To the Protestant, the church is still the pillar and foundation of truth, but to the Protestant, where two or three are gathered, there is the church.

So it is futile for Protestants and Catholics to debate theology and doctrine because they are two completely different religions... Different faith paradigms. They can never agree... Never... Except one or the other compromises their faith. Catholics come here and debate. Why? They're a different religion. What they come here and teach is correct... According to Catholic theology... And wrong.... According to Protestant theology.
What they teach is correct... According to a traditional interpretation of scripture... And wrong... According to the scripture without traditional interpretation. So again I ask, why do Catholics come here? We have precious little in common. What we do have in common superficially, like certain doctrines related to salvation etc., are in fact quite different if one is willing to scratch a little below the surface. So different in fact that when those differences are brought out into the open, one wonders if anything positive could accrue. It's like baseball players arguing the rules of sport with an American footballer.
So I could ask again... Why would a baseball player want to join a football club in order to play baseball?

 

[Illuminator]

Absolutely... Which you are fully aware of.
And before you start going off on some tangent, don't miss the point I am making when I say Catholicism is a different religion than the rest. Catholics themselves admit this. It isn't a controversial statement to make, and it isn't insulting. It is a simple matter of fact. Why is it different?

The Catholic Church didn't separate from anybody, various communities separated themselves from the original historic Church, which you are different from, not the other way around. The claim that Catholicism "is different" presupposes that Protestantism is the original church, and a cursory study of church history shows that this is not the case. Thus you are forced to re-write history and lie about the ECF because none of them held to any Protestant distinctives.

Catholicism, by your own admission, is a form of religion/faith based on what you call sacred tradition.

A straw man fallacy. Cite an official church document where this nonsense is admitted. Catholicism, by our own admission, is based on Jesus Christ.
The BIBLICAL rule of faith is Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium, and you are straining to isolate one from the other.

Scripture is interpreted by the magisterium with tradition being the arbiter as to what scripture means, thus if one was to look upon this dispassionately, one could say the magisterium, and not scripture or tradition, is the final authority. Because it is they who make the final decision.

A non-sequitur fallacy. Final decisions only apply to controversial interpretations. The Church has solemnly defined only seven verses, and even then she teaches what it does not mean. The Bible is a living Word, sola scriptura turns it into a statue with each individual as its own magisterium, a recipe for theological chaos.

You as much admit this yourself many times when you claim the CC is the final authority because, you say, the church is the foundation of truth.

Of course. Explicit proof text is found in 1 Tim. 3:15 that clearly states the church is the foundation of truth. Matthew 18:17 does not say "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the scriptures". Tell it to the CHURCH! It's right there in front of you but that is not how you read the entire NT.

Protestants however are different, again by your own admission, in that Protestants claim scripture alone as the final authority for faith and practice. To the Protestant, the church is still the pillar and foundation of truth, but to the Protestant, where two or three are gathered, there is the church.

Two or three gathered (in My name) means being in communion with Apostolic Teaching, spoken and written. Outside of that its just a bless-me-club. Even the notorious anti-Catholic polemicist James White admits none of the Apostles were sola scripturists.

So it is futile for Protestants and Catholics to debate theology and doctrine because they are two completely different religions... Different faith paradigms. They can never agree... Never... Except one or the other compromises their faith.

It's futile because people like you are determined to nurture further division between Catholics and Protestants. Former anti-Catholic Bible professor Scott Hahn says we agree 90% of the time.

Catholics come here and debate. Why? They're a different religion. What they come here and teach is correct... According to Catholic theology... And wrong.... According to Protestant theology.

If you would stop LYING about what we believe, LYING about church history, INSULTING the ECF, and dishonestly changing the meaning of key words, there wouldn't be anything to debate.

What they teach is correct... According to a traditional interpretation of scripture... And wrong... According to the scripture without traditional interpretation. So again I ask, why do Catholics come here?

Again, to explain the faith and defend against the constant myths, lies, and falsehoods that are typical of ignorant anti-Catholics.

We have precious little in common.

We have plenty in common. We don't have in common the same lies taught by the SDA, the JW's, and legions of made-in-America cults that teach the same lies as you do. Most Protestants I have met personally are good Christians and not ignorant anti-Catholic bigots. You are a minority claiming to speak for the rest of us.

What we do have in common superficially, like certain doctrines related to salvation etc., are in fact quite different if one is willing to scratch a little below the surface. So different in fact that when those differences are brought out into the open, one wonders if anything positive could accrue. It's like baseball players arguing the rules of sport with an American footballer.

No, sola scriptura is like going to a baseball game and all the players are umpires.

Wounds to unity

CCC817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271​

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
footnotes:
279 Cf. UR 1.
280 Cf. UR 6.
281 UR 7 § 3.
282 UR 8 § 1.
283 Cf. UR 9.
284 Cf. UR 10.
285 Cf. UR 4; 9; 11.
286 Cf. UR 12.
287 UR 5.
288 UR 24 § 2.
UR: Unitatis redintegratio

Summary of Unitatis redintegratio

The desire to recover the unity of all Christians does not mean abandon ones beliefs, but to embellish the truths already held, as testified by thousands of converts. A one world religion led by the pope is just a bunch of fear mongering paranoid nonsense, it would demand that the Church violate her own teachings on religious freedom.

 

[Marymog]

True. But the traditions of the apostles (what was handed down by them, since that is the meaning of the word) were not the same as those of the teachings of others who followed them. Errors crept into the churches very early and were incorporated in the writings of the ECF. So once again, Scripture is the final arbiter of what is a true tradition.

Was there anything the Apostolic and ECF’s wrote that was not an error?

Did errors creep in during the Reformation?

curious

 

[Illuminator]

LIE OF THE WEEK:
Errors crept into the churches very early and were incorporated in the writings of the ECF.

 

[Marymog]

True. But the traditions of the apostles (what was handed down by them, since that is the meaning of the word) were not the same as those of the teachings of others who followed them. Errors crept into the churches very early and were incorporated in the writings of the ECF. So once again, Scripture is the final arbiter of what is a true tradition.

Who decides what the ECF’s wrote was in error? How do you know it was an error?