The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[Mink57]

Agree.
Would say instead, Christ Jesus’ Church.

O.k. Yes, it is Christ Jesus' Church. I say "the" church because I believe that Christ meant to set up ONE church...which was HIS church. The idea that it's Christ's church TO ME, is automatically understood...by me (and, the RCC).

I listen.

I do not Scripturally see the appointment of “holy men, holy fathers”.
I see Jesus having called men and having appointed men as students to hear, and as disciples to listen, and as Apostles who believed and as teachers to preach Gods word, continually giving the Lord God Himself full credit.

Definition of "holy":

• Dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred.
  
• (of a person) devoted to the service of God.
  "saints and holy men"
• morally and spiritually excellent.

Certainly I would see the Apostles as being "holy".

The Apostles did appoint others for certain tasks. In Acts 6, it says (I'm paraphrasing for now) that as the number of disciples was growing, the Hellenists complained because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. The Apostles said to their disciples, "Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task..." (Acts 6:3) The seven men that were chosen and brought to the Apostles...who "prayed and laid hands on them". I would consider those 7 men to be "holy" and having been "appointed"...by God...through the Apostles.

* Again, I listen.
Sure there is a PRINTED difference between “a h and H”... “holy father and Holy father”.
There is no difference between ORALLY spoken “holy father and Holy father”.

The difference is in the context and/or intent.

* Again, I observe.
Bowing down in Reverence to the Heavenly Holy Father whose Throne is Heaven.
or bowing down in reverence to men on earth, who wear a man-made crown, who sit on a man-made throne, and men on earth who bow down to man made statues on earth.
Big difference.

The difference is in the intention behind the act and not the act itself.

Again, I listen.
Repeatedly “the Catholic Church”, is claimed by the Catholic Church, is claimed by it’s members, as “THE” only recognized Church.
I Disagree. ^
I Believe “THE Church”, is expressly, Christ Jesus’ Church, expressly WITHIN men, regardless of what man-made building men call a church.

* Sure, man-made buildings are established as churches, have men who sit as heads (Preachers), appoint men as deacons, and give a whole host of titles, regarding that buildings business.
* Sure, some men who sit as heads, who are appointed, wander off from being godly representatives of Gods Word.
* AND the members thereof those particular “religious organizations”, can certainly continue “supporting”, continue “advocating”, continue “trusting”, or leave such “religious organizations”.
* IF and WHEN I personally identify as a member of a “particular religious organization” that is identified with “corrupt” ungodly advocation ... you can challenge my membership participation.

Um....o.k....

“Those atrocities”? Brought to the higher counsel of the Catholic Religious Organization and dealt with HOW for centuries? Hiding the culprits? Silencing or Ex-communicating the complaining member?

And do you think that this has ONLY happened in the Catholic Church? Hardly.

Since the 1990’s ? The CC Eliminating atrocities? HOW?
Appointing men such as Reinhard Marx, as a Cardinal, as an Archbishop, as an advisor to Pope Francis....when Reinhard Marx himself is an advocator of Karl Marx Communist ideals? ...(same as some former Popes?)

Sure...and “he” who is sitting in offices dictating what is allowed and is not allowed should also be “recognized”, IF What he is dictating, applies to “himself” as well.

Frankly, I don't care much for politics. When I go to church, I go to worship God. And that's it.

 

[ScottA]

Oh? We "ALL" missed that - did we??

Apparently, you're under the false idea that God is the ONLY one in Scripture who is called "Rock".
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

In Isaiah 51, we read the following:
Isaiah 51:1-2
Look to the ROCK from which you were cut
and to the quarry from which you were hewn;
look to Abraham, your father

- God/Jesus is called "Rock/Cornerstone" (Psalm 78:35, 2 Sam. 23"3, Matt. 21:42, etc.)
- Abraham is called "Rock" (Isaiah 51:1-2)
- Peter is called "Rock" (Matt. 16:18)

Okay class...BreadOfLife is out of context.

I already have (and so did Jesus), but can anyone tell us what the ONLY two rock metaphors are represented [in context] in Jesus' comments to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19?

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19​

Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) = rock​

My Father = My Rock​

..Yes, Mr. Pope, is that your hand up...would you like to give us an answer? Or would you like to stay after class with Mr. Bread?

 

[farouk]

I agree with most of what you wrote ^.


O.k....


Our church is not upon "one man". It's upon Jesus. That's stressed in my Catholic Bible over and over again. Christ is THE Head of the church. Not "my" church. Not "your" church, but THE church.

How in the world do you know this? Yes, the Catholic church does appoint ORDAINED men as holy fathers...because the Apostles appointed holy men as 'father's' starting with the election of Matthias. But who said that this is done "without credit due it is God who is the Holy Father?

By the way, big difference between "holy father" and "Holy Father".


Once again, where are you getting your information? What I quoted isn't even close to the truth.


Again, not even close to the truth. I believe there was a post on this thread that linked a number of articles that discuss how the Catholic church isn't the ONLY church where underhanded, corrupt, deceitful deeds are found.

I also find no universally recognized authority that claims that the Catholic church "exalts" itself in the face of those atrocities. In fact, just the opposite is true. The CC has made great strides since the 1990's, in eliminating as many of these unfortunate atrocities as they humanly can.

Both Jesus and Paul both taught that there would be evil and corruption in Jesus' church. But we have to remember that satan seeks to destroy his church.

Just because some people are evil inside the church doesn't make the whole church evil...[/QUOTE]
Hi @Mink57 Ephesians 1 says that the Lord Jesus is 'head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all'.

 

[ScottA]

The very fact that the Bible doesn't tell us what books belong in it destroys sola scriptura.

God's Word is simply under His providence and not that of men. And even many in error have carried it forward.

 

[Berserk]

4 facts commend greater evangelical respect for the vital role of Catholicism in shaping the biblical canon:
(1) For the first centuries, there is no ecclesial consensus on the limits of the NT canon. On the one hand, the NT books themselves don't claim their composition is divinely inspired. On the other hand, Clement claims his noncanonical first century epistle to the Corinthians is divinely inspired ("writtem through the Holy Spirit--1 Clement 63:2)." So we have no choice but the trust that the verdict of Catholic tradition in sorting out our canoniacl NT books is guided by the Holy Spirit.
(2) NT references to biblical inspiration refer only to the OT. The NT can't comment on its own inspiration because it didn't exist as a collection of canonical books for centuries. 2 Peter 3:16 does refer to "the wisdom" in some Pauline epistles but adds that for they are "hard to understand" for some and never claims they are divinely inspired.
(3) There is no list prior to the Reformation that limits the biblical canon precisely to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.
(4) In the first century the OT canon was apparently not even closed. For example, Jude cites 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as if they were Scripture, including a supernatural story that evangelicals would dismiss as legend.
In 1 Cor. 2:9 Paul quotes the lost Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture, introducing with the authoritative phrase "It is written." The quotation is somewhat similar to Isaiah (64:4; 52:15); so some make the bogus claim that Paul is quoting a lost variant text of Isaiah. But the early church father Origen (c. 220 AD) has access to the underlying text of Isaiah and assures us that the text is instead quoting the Apocalypse of Elijah.

 

[ScottA]

4 facts commend greater evangelical respect for the vital role of Catholicism in shaping the biblical canon:
(1) For the first centuries, there is no ecclesial consensus on the limits of the NT canon. On the one hand, the NT books themselves don't claim their composition is divinely inspired. On the other hand, Clement claims his noncanonical first century epistle to the Corinthians is divinely inspired ("writtem through the Holy Spirit--1 Clement 63:2)." So we have no choice but the trust that the verdict of Catholic tradition in sorting out our canoniacl NT books is guided by the Holy Spirit.
(2) NT references to biblical inspiration refer only to the OT. The NT can't comment on its own inspiration because it didn't exist as a collection of canonical books for centuries. 2 Peter 3:16 does refer to "the wisdom" in some Pauline epistles but adds that for they are "hard to understand" for some and never claims they are divinely inspired.
(3) There is no list prior to the Reformation that limits the biblical canon precisely to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.
(4) In the first century the OT canon was apparently not even closed. For example, Jude cites 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as if they were Scripture, including a supernatural story that evangelicals would dismiss as legend.
In 1 Cor. 2:9 Paul quotes the lost Apocalypse of Elijah as Scripture, introducing with the authoritative phrase "It is written." The quotation is somewhat similar to Isaiah (64:4; 52:15); so some make the bogus claim that Paul is quoting a lost variant text of Isaiah. But the early church father Origen (c. 220 AD) has access to the underlying text of Isaiah and assures us that the text is instead quoting the Apocalypse of Elijah.

The word of God, is simply that, whether first given by the law and prophets, Jesus, the apostles, or by His children who are among all flesh since Pentecost.

The difference since Pentecost, is that people of "all flesh" (referred to by Joel the prophet) do not speak the truth from God, but rather speak all manner of good and evil according to what is manifest of them by God. Then comes the end.

These times are indeed those foretold by Joel the prophet. Yet Jesus clarified, that only His sheep "Hear My voice."

 

[Taken]

The very fact that the Bible doesn't tell us what books belong in it destroys sola scriptura.

It fell from the sky???

IN Heaven, (Gods Throne) and Out of Gods Mouth IN Heaven came forth Gods Word, Written By Gods finger IN Stone ....TO a man ON Earth.
And the first thing that man DID, was BRAKE Gods Word Written in Stone.

So ya, It sort of DID Come down from the Sky, and was promptly broken BY man!

And Yes, God gave that same man, the task of LABOR, to Chisel out Gods Word in Stone.

Nowhere in Scripture is "word of God" used to mean the written word alone.
The ESV mentions it 51 times, or use any version you like. I haven't been able find where "word of God" is used in the context of the written word alone. Why don't you be the first?

* The Word of God, was told to men, to Hear, to Speak, to Write, to Copy the Writings, to Distribute the Copies, Continue Speaking to the little illiterate children.
* After centuries of a repeated ORDER, Not news.
Not particularly news, of warning that many SPEAKERS, may wander off from SPEAKING Gods Word, to SPEAKING THEIR own words, and passing them off as Gods Word, to WHICH the LISTENER is ADVISED to VERIFY with the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD, “IF” what a Speaker “IS” Speaking “IS” true According to the written Scriptural Word.

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us..” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

IN CONTEXT... Jesus Expressly referenced the OT WRITTEN Scriptures. Jesus Orally taught He is the fulfillment of OT WRITTEN Scriptures. Freewill of men, to Believe it OR NOT.
IN CONTEXT....Jesus’ Apostles Continued the SAME Teaching. Freewill of men, to Believe it OR NOT.
IN CONTEXT....What Jesus ORALLY taught, What Jesus’ Apostles ORALLY taught, were captured in WRITINGS by Scribes first hand Listening to their ORAL spoken words, were captured in WRITINGS from the Scribes to RECORDERS, who were tasked with WRITING the WORDS on Scrolls....
* AND the Scrolls, continuously guarded, threatened, hidden, some found, some burned, some rewritten, redistributed, guarded, threatened, hidden, found.......
centuries of efforts of increasing distribution OF the Written Word of God, to the People at large, while faced with efforts of a constant wickedness to oppress distribution OF the Written Word of God, to the People at large. ——> which continues TO THIS DAY! ——>
So also to this DAY....Freewill of men to Believe it or Not.

BOTTOM LINE;

* It is YOUR freewill to believe Oral teaching, WITHOUT verifying with written Scripture what an Oral Speaker teaches, or what that Speaker writes, without regard to what I freely choose to do.

* As well it is MY freewill to believe Oral teaching, WITH verifying with written Scripture what an Oral Speaker teaches, or what that Speaker writes, without regard to what YOU freely choose to do.

The difference between a Catholic Church and a Protestant Church...
Is how the membership of an individual is accepted or rejected or ejected from man-establish Church membership rolls.

Christ’s Church has an express Order and Way for membership IN HIS Church, and once a member is Accepted, It is Permanent. There is no, inclusion of membership today, and exclusion of ejection tomorrow.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay class...BreadOfLife is out of context.

I already have (and so did Jesus), but can anyone tell us what the ONLY two rock metaphors are represented [in context] in Jesus' comments to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19?

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19​

Simon Bar-Jonah (Peter) = rock​

My Father = My Rock​

..Yes, Mr. Pope, is that your hand up...would you like to give us an answer? Or would you like to stay after class with Mr. Bread?

WROG agaun.

Firsy of all - the text in question is verse 17:
Matt. 16:17
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

There is NO mention if a "Rock" here - NOR is it even implied.
It is simply the FIRT part of e threefold bleassing to Simon for having had the revelation from God who Jesus is.

Verse 18 is SECOND part of this threefold blessing - and where we are given the reference to the "Rock":
Matt. 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter (Kepha), and on this rock (Kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We then go to the THIRD part of this blessing:
Matt. 16:19
I will give YOU (Kepha/Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU (Kepha/Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU (Kepha/Peter) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

YOUR problem is that you invvent a different context for this scenario because the alternative is that the Catholic Church is RIGHT - and that is unthinkable to you.
Interesting that the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scjolars I presented in posts #231 & #232 didn't have the same difficulty - OR pride . . .

 

[Taken]

The difference is in the context and/or intent.

Regarding bowing down before statues...
...Know them by their fruits, is a visual observation, not the context or intent of the one bowing.

And do you think that this has ONLY happened in the Catholic Church? Hardly.

No.
However the Catholic Church is mixed with a Government.
...An individual has a more difficult time resolving an improper issue in a Catholic scenario than with a person whose religious matter is Not regarded as necessary to protect.
Protestant Churches are separate from Governments, more of a charge of person against person without regard to religious affiliation.

Frankly, I don't care much for politics. When I go to church, I go to worship God. And that's it.

The Catholic Church and Vatican Government is highly political and religious mixed.

 

[ScottA]

WROG agaun.

Firsy of all - the text in question is verse 17:
Matt. 16:17
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

There is NO mention if a "Rock" here - NOR is it even implied.
It is simply the FIRT part of e threefold bleassing to Simon for having had the revelation from God who Jesus is.

Verse 18 is SECOND part of this threefold blessing - and where we are given the reference to the "Rock":
Matt. 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter (Kepha), and on this rock (Kepha) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We then go to the THIRD part of this blessing:
Matt. 16:19
I will give YOU (Kepha/Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU (Kepha/Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU (Kepha/Peter) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

YOUR problem is that you invvent a different context for this scenario because the alternative is that the Catholic Church is RIGHT - and that is unthinkable to you.
Interesting that the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scjolars I presented in posts #231 & #232 didn't have the same difficulty - OR pride . . .

Now you divide the context simply to make your own preferred meaning work-- The only thing that shows, is there is no limit to your folly.

It was ONE conversation (one context), contrasting "flesh and blood" with what comes from the Father--which is spirit. Jesus was speaking prophetically, and again, you all missed it. Indeed, it was a blessing, but it also included a curse...and you all fell for it--you chose flesh and blood. The curse and consequence is that of the evil servant. Take warning.

 

[Marymog]

Sinners cannot absolve other sinners.

you should read the bible instead of giving your opinion: John 20:23

 

[Marymog]

Man cannot absolve other men of sin. You catholics have such terribly wrong theology.

Read the bible kiddo: John 20:23

 

[Marymog]

T

The Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong.

Who decides what is "wrong" and what is "right"?

 

[Marymog]

You are confusing hatred of false doctrine vs loving people who have been deceived by their hypocritical hierarchy.

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself hates false doctrines and practices (see Revelation 2 & 3), but He loves the people who have been snared by them. Catholics are generally fine, upstanding, moral citizens, seriously opposed to abortions. God loves them and so should all Christians. Why would anyone hate them for being deceived by the deceivers who run their church?

It is the Catholic church's doctrines and practices that are being addressed. And you are an apologist for them (unlike the Reformers). Even Catholic John Wycliffe was not an apologist for his church's false teachings.

Hmmmm....but YOU haven't been decieved into a false doctrine....Have you?

Only the people who you disagree with have? ;)

 

[Enoch111]

Hmmmm....but YOU haven't been decieved into a false doctrine....Have you?

No. As as matter of fact I have not. So which doctrine do you wish to address?

 

[Marymog]

No. As as matter of fact I have not. So which doctrine do you wish to address?

I asked you a question. You gave an answer. Thank you!

You believe you have not been deceived which means anyone that you disagree with has been deceived.

YOU are the one who suggested a hatred for false doctrines and not the people who follow them, not I. So which false doctrine that you hate do YOU wish to address?

 

[Episkopos]

Who decides what is "wrong" and what is "right"?

What is right is what brings life...what edifies the INNER man. The outer man is satisfied with sensual things...sights, smells, sounds. What becomes tradition is what is seen as working with carnal people rather than follow the Apostolic tradition that nurtures spiritual life. So to be successful in the temporal world one needs to either cater to the sensual aspect of humans...as the Catholics do...or else the ideological security that the outer man craves...like the Protestants.

But success in this world is not a good measure of what is pleasing to God...and what actually saves people.

When a person doesn't know what the goal is, anything goes. Where is the church that disciples people into the FULL stature of Christ? Find that and you have found the true church of God.

 

[Enoch111]

you should read the bible instead of giving your opinion: John 20:23

So let's address this statement.
1. To whom was is said? To the eleven apostles only (technically ten but Thomas would also be included later though we do not read of it). But not to the whole church.
2. Why was it said? Because Christ gave the apostles APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY over all the churches, and they also spoke and wrote by divine inspiration. This was limited to the apostles, not to the whole church.
3. How often did the apostles use this authority? As per the NT very infrequently. We have Peter dealing with Ananias & Sapphira and also with Simon the Sorcerer. Then we have Paul dealing with the person who committed incest in Corinth (and who was later forgiven and restored).
4. Is there any indication whatsoever that elders would be able to forgive sins? None whatsoever. In James we have the word paraptoma which is translated as "faults" in the KJV. It was corrupted to hamartia (sins) to go along with the Catholic concept, and so it is in the corrupt modern versions.
5. Was there ever a separate class of "priests" in any apostolic church? Absolutely not. All believers belong to a Royal Priesthood, and the Catholic priesthood was created out of thin air (just like the pope and the prelates).
6. Was Christ's power to forgive sins questioned by His enemies? Yes. Since they presumed that He was a mere man. and therefore said that only God had the power to forgive sins.

 

[Marymog]

What is right is what brings life...what edifies the INNER man. The outer man is satisfied with sensual things...sights, smells, sounds. What becomes tradition is what is seen as working with carnal people rather than follow the Apostolic tradition that nurtures spiritual life. So to be successful in the temporal world one needs to either cater to the sensual aspect of humans...as the Catholics do...or else the ideological security that the outer man craves...like the Protestants.

But success in this world is not a good measure of what is pleasing to God...and what actually saves people.

When a person doesn't know what the goal is, anything goes. Where is the church that disciples people into the FULL stature of Christ? Find that and you have found the true church of God.

I don't see an answer to my "who" question.

You said; The Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong.

Would you care to try again? Did YOU decide who got what right and who got what wrong? Are you the who? :cool:

 

[marks]

When a person doesn't know what the goal is, anything goes. Where is the church that disciples people into the FULL stature of Christ? Find that and you have found the true church of God.

Amen!