Christian Forums

Quote from: Mirage on Tue Oct 15, 2013 - 20:41:23
History clearly proves the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics and for Catholics.

I do not understand why any Protestant would use the Holy Bile considering how deeply Protestants despise the Catholic faith and the fact the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics and for Catholics.

The fact Protestants still use a Holy Bible shows, the Catholic Church still prevails over Protestants.

"Catholic origin?" really?

It is of JEWISH origin. Get your history straight.

Quote from: Reverend M on Sun Oct 20, 2013 - 07:33:55
No, I am not going to trash you but I will say this: you may have guessed that my faith tradition is related to the Catholic faith, which is why I happen to know something about it. My ancestors were among those who were excommunicated by the Pope, so I know something about that, too. I also have many friends and neighbors who are Catholic, and I agree with Bishop Sheen when he said that people don't hate the Catholic church, they hate what they think the Catholic church is.

Probably about 90% of the things you and others list as your complaints (praying to saints, praying to Mary, etc.) stem from a misunderstanding of what is really going on. Trust me, the RCC has enough REAL problems, you don't have to invent them.

On the other hand, some of the neo-Protestant beliefs like the John Darby/left behind business and Charles Finney revivalism is just as goofy and just as extra-Biblical to them (and to me), but some of you fight and die on these hills as if they were salvation issues.

I don't have a foot in either of your camps, I have taken my feet out of both of your camps for the same reason. You fight over things that don't matter and never get to the things that do.

I would say that you rather strike a chord with what you say.
But firstly let me say that I am not going to argue with you who has a stronger footing in Catholicism, as this is kind of irrelevant to the case at hand.
Be assured however that I am reasoning from well vested experience.

You may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

A Catholic would tell you that praying to Saints and Mary certainly matters and equally a Protestant would tell you that the opposing view matters.
And here you are telling us that it doesn't matter at all.
If indeed it does not matter, should you not deposit your statement with a supporting explanation rather than informing the members here that "trashing" is a viable solution?

There is this saying: "practice what you preach".
Observing your wish that we should get around discussing things that do matter...where can I find your attempt to this?
I am not trying to diminish the correctness of your statement, but I would like to point out that convincing people here should be a combination of words and scriptural foundations.

It is exactly the foundation that is missing from your statements here so far. And that pulls you straight into the Catholic camp.
For example your claim that Catholics have this lineage straight to the Apostles.
By itself this statement is true, the Catholic Church indeed has such a lineage. But the question is not if you have or not have lineage, the question is if such a lineage is valid and scriptural.
I could, and I will, respond to you that the lineage is blackened with inequities. Popes got murdered for their position, the seat was traded and offered to the highest bidder, there are gaps without Popes and there are times where there even was more than one Pope.
And I am not even mentioning the times when Pope exercised horrible sins such as sodomy, killings and sexual immorality. (guess I mentioned it after all).

If a denomination claims she has superior qualities over others, her actions should indicate the value of her words.
This can be demanded from any church, including the Catholic Church, because we shall know the tree by its fruit.
Hence such demand may also be directed to you. Instead of phrasing hollow statements...why not define them properly with relevant documented support?

The first place of choice to draw support from must always be the Bible.
And this is exactly what the discussion is about.
Where the Catholic Church prides herself of being the basis of the Bible, many of her teachings can be found outside it.
Don't believe me? Check out the background of the Mary worship, Papal infallibility and, since we have mentioned it, apostolic succession.
Without exception, and with admittance of the RCC, their foundations are in extra-biblical documentation and special revelation.

Now if you want to do something that matters, stop shooting blanks to either side and implement some substance in your statements.
Your Catholic friends and neighbors are not being helped by you being lukewarm.

QuoteYou may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me.

Quote
A Catholic would tell you that praying to Saints and Mary certainly matters...

No, they wouldn't. You need to find out what they would say. There is an RCC website: http://www.catholic.com/ Go ask them, quit putting words in their mouths.

QuoteAnd here you are telling us that it doesn't matter at all.

It doesn't matter because it's not true, and a waste of time to debate it.

QuoteThere is this saying: "practice what you preach".
Observing your wish that we should get around discussing things that do matter...where can I find your attempt to this?
I am not trying to diminish the correctness of your statement, but I would like to point out that convincing people here should be a combination of words and scriptural foundations.

I am just getting started, give me a break.

QuoteBut the question is not if you have or not have lineage, the question is if such a lineage is valid and scriptural.

Compare it to the OT and see. The OT wasn't written for no reason - it also has the knowledge for salvation written into it.

QuoteI could, and I will, respond to you that the lineage is blackened with inequities. Popes got murdered for their position, the seat was traded and offered to the highest bidder, there are gaps without Popes and there are times where there even was more than one Pope.
And I am not even mentioning the times when Pope exercised horrible sins such as sodomy, killings and sexual immorality. (guess I mentioned it after all).

And the Protestant side has Oliver Cromwell, the Puritans, and the Salem Witch trials. So what?

QuoteHence such demand may also be directed to you. Instead of phrasing hollow statements...why not define them properly with relevant documented support?

If you want things to read I can certainly recommend some things, but I am not going to write a dissertation only to have it ignored or shouted down.

Quote
The first place of choice to draw support from must always be the Bible.

No, the church is here to teach us the Bible, it is then that you search the scriptures to find out if what you are being told is true. Too many people proceed blindly down alleys without understanding what they read, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. For $20, where is that verse?

Quote
Don't believe me? Check out the background of the Mary worship, Papal infallibility and, since we have mentioned it, apostolic succession.

In the first place, Mary worship isn't taught by the church, Papal infallibility isn't what most people think it is. If the Pope teaches scripture truthfully he is infallible. It doesn't mean everything he could possibly ever say is true. And I know something about apostolic succession, what's your problem with it?

QuoteWithout exception, and with admittance of the RCC, their foundations are in extra-biblical documentation and special revelation.

I think you are behind the times.

QuoteYour Catholic friends and neighbors are not being helped by you being lukewarm.

Ready when you are, pick a topic and we'll discuss it. I am travelling for the next couple of days but I'll be back.

Quote from: Reverend M on Sun Oct 20, 2013 - 10:03:38

QuoteYou may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me.

Quote
A Catholic would tell you that praying to Saints and Mary certainly matters...

No, they wouldn't. You need to find out what they would say. There is an RCC website: http://www.catholic.com/ Go ask them, quit putting words in their mouths.

QuoteAnd here you are telling us that it doesn't matter at all.

It doesn't matter because it's not true, and a waste of time to debate it.

QuoteThere is this saying: "practice what you preach".
Observing your wish that we should get around discussing things that do matter...where can I find your attempt to this?
I am not trying to diminish the correctness of your statement, but I would like to point out that convincing people here should be a combination of words and scriptural foundations.

I am just getting started, give me a break.

QuoteBut the question is not if you have or not have lineage, the question is if such a lineage is valid and scriptural.

Compare it to the OT and see. The OT wasn't written for no reason - it also has the knowledge for salvation written into it.

QuoteI could, and I will, respond to you that the lineage is blackened with inequities. Popes got murdered for their position, the seat was traded and offered to the highest bidder, there are gaps without Popes and there are times where there even was more than one Pope.
And I am not even mentioning the times when Pope exercised horrible sins such as sodomy, killings and sexual immorality. (guess I mentioned it after all).

And the Protestant side has Oliver Cromwell, the Puritans, and the Salem Witch trials. So what?

QuoteHence such demand may also be directed to you. Instead of phrasing hollow statements...why not define them properly with relevant documented support?

If you want things to read I can certainly recommend some things, but I am not going to write a dissertation only to have it ignored or shouted down.

Quote
The first place of choice to draw support from must always be the Bible.

No, the church is here to teach us the Bible, it is then that you search the scriptures to find out if what you are being told is true. Too many people proceed blindly down alleys without understanding what they read, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. For $20, where is that verse?

Quote
Don't believe me? Check out the background of the Mary worship, Papal infallibility and, since we have mentioned it, apostolic succession.

In the first place, Mary worship isn't taught by the church, Papal infallibility isn't what most people think it is. If the Pope teaches scripture truthfully he is infallible. It doesn't mean everything he could possibly ever say is true. And I know something about apostolic succession, what's your problem with it?

QuoteWithout exception, and with admittance of the RCC, their foundations are in extra-biblical documentation and special revelation.

I think you are behind the times.

QuoteYour Catholic friends and neighbors are not being helped by you being lukewarm.

Ready when you are, pick a topic and we'll discuss it. I am travelling for the next couple of days but I'll be back.

AVZ I DON'T KNOW ID YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY TO THE FELLOW BUT I AM BITTINg AT THE BIT. Out of respect I will giver you your space.

To the Reverend this is not ego but truth really matters.

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Oct 25, 2013 - 16:27:59

Quote from: Reverend M on Sun Oct 20, 2013 - 10:03:38

QuoteYou may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me.

Quote
A Catholic would tell you that praying to Saints and Mary certainly matters...

No, they wouldn't. You need to find out what they would say. There is an RCC website: http://www.catholic.com/ Go ask them, quit putting words in their mouths.

QuoteAnd here you are telling us that it doesn't matter at all.

It doesn't matter because it's not true, and a waste of time to debate it.

QuoteThere is this saying: "practice what you preach".
Observing your wish that we should get around discussing things that do matter...where can I find your attempt to this?
I am not trying to diminish the correctness of your statement, but I would like to point out that convincing people here should be a combination of words and scriptural foundations.

I am just getting started, give me a break.

QuoteBut the question is not if you have or not have lineage, the question is if such a lineage is valid and scriptural.

Compare it to the OT and see. The OT wasn't written for no reason - it also has the knowledge for salvation written into it.

QuoteI could, and I will, respond to you that the lineage is blackened with inequities. Popes got murdered for their position, the seat was traded and offered to the highest bidder, there are gaps without Popes and there are times where there even was more than one Pope.
And I am not even mentioning the times when Pope exercised horrible sins such as sodomy, killings and sexual immorality. (guess I mentioned it after all).

And the Protestant side has Oliver Cromwell, the Puritans, and the Salem Witch trials. So what?

QuoteHence such demand may also be directed to you. Instead of phrasing hollow statements...why not define them properly with relevant documented support?

If you want things to read I can certainly recommend some things, but I am not going to write a dissertation only to have it ignored or shouted down.

Quote
The first place of choice to draw support from must always be the Bible.

No, the church is here to teach us the Bible, it is then that you search the scriptures to find out if what you are being told is true. Too many people proceed blindly down alleys without understanding what they read, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. For $20, where is that verse?

Quote
Don't believe me? Check out the background of the Mary worship, Papal infallibility and, since we have mentioned it, apostolic succession.

In the first place, Mary worship isn't taught by the church, Papal infallibility isn't what most people think it is. If the Pope teaches scripture truthfully he is infallible. It doesn't mean everything he could possibly ever say is true. And I know something about apostolic succession, what's your problem with it?

QuoteWithout exception, and with admittance of the RCC, their foundations are in extra-biblical documentation and special revelation.

I think you are behind the times.

QuoteYour Catholic friends and neighbors are not being helped by you being lukewarm.

Ready when you are, pick a topic and we'll discuss it. I am travelling for the next couple of days but I'll be back.

AVZ I DON'T KNOW ID YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY TO THE FELLOW BUT I AM BITTINg AT THE BIT. Out of respect I will giver you your space.

To the Reverend this is not ego but truth really matters.

And truth is in short supply around here.

Quote from: mclees8 on Fri Oct 25, 2013 - 16:27:59

AVZ I DON'T KNOW ID YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY TO THE FELLOW BUT I AM BITTINg AT THE BIT. Out of respect I will giver you your space.

To the Reverend this is not ego but truth really matters.

Hi McLees,

No I don't think any further addition is required. My point is clear.

Quote from: Reverend M on October 20, 2013, 09:03:38 AM
Quote
You may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me.
Quote

Mike>> What is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.  So many times just words of convenience written in a book.
Also which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible, so then you say the magisterial can add what it wants. You have no substantial argument to say read the Catechism
A Catholic would tell you that praying to Saints and Mary certainly matters...


No, they wouldn't. You need to find out what they would say. There is an RCC website: http://www.catholic.com/ Go ask them, quit putting words in their mouths.
Quote
And here you are telling us that it doesn't matter at all.


It doesn't matter because it's not true, and a waste of time to debate it.
Quote
There is this saying: "practice what you preach".
Observing your wish that we should get around discussing things that do matter...where can I find your attempt to this?
I am not trying to diminish the correctness of your statement, but I would like to point out that convincing people here should be a combination of words and scriptural foundations.


I am just getting started, give me a break.
Quote
But the question is not if you have or not have lineage, the question is if such a lineage is valid and scriptural.


Compare it to the OT and see. The OT wasn't written for no reason - it also has the knowledge for salvation written into it.
Quote
I could, and I will, respond to you that the lineage is blackened with inequities. Popes got murdered for their position, the seat was traded and offered to the highest bidder, there are gaps without Popes and there are times where there even was more than one Pope.
And I am not even mentioning the times when Pope exercised horrible sins such as sodomy, killings and sexual immorality. (guess I mentioned it after all).


And the Protestant side has Oliver Cromwell, the Puritans, and the Salem Witch trials. So what?


Mike>> I like how when evil is pointed out from your side of the river you look to the evil on the protestant side and say so what as if that makes everything on your side OK. Your comment is not original but an evil and wicked attitude. First off the papacy was wicked long before Protestantism existed. Its not (SO WHAT) You point to evil Protestants as your excuse. I said it once before and will say again, it is true what Jesus said you paint your tombs white but inside they are full of death.
This is not about who is more wicked then the other. How foolish you speak. Evil is all through this thing we call Christianity. Do you think God plays favorites or his has a pet denomination so as to say my pet can be evil but the other will burn? You have forgotten that if there was only one sinner Christ died for him. I tell you Jesus has a bride among the tares and he knows each one by name. How will he say of you ? Will he say depart from me I don't know you? Quote


Hence such demand may also be directed to you. Instead of phrasing hollow statements...why not define them properly with relevant documented support?


If you want things to read I can certainly recommend some things, but I am not going to write a dissertation only to have it ignored or shouted down.
Quote
The first place of choice to draw support from must always be the Bible.


No, the church is here to teach us the Bible, it is then that you search the scriptures to find out if what you are being told is true. Too many people proceed blindly down alleys without understanding what they read, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. For $20, where is that verse?

Mike>> I don't bet, but for you that is a foolish one. I have always admired those who could rattle off scripture and verse and have seen some good ones in my time, but are you trying to brag?
You know I know a lot of scripture and they all come to me when I need them, but I was never good a scritpture and verse. I know the scripture you speak of very well after over 35 years. I also have Strong's Full Concordance. Your scripture is in 2nd Tim 3:7 you can keep the 20.  Perhaps you think this verse does not apply to you. Perhaps you can tell us of this truth you don't thing we have yet. You know I once said there is no one so blind as the one who does not think he is blind. Quote


Don't believe me? Check out the background of the Mary worship, Papal infallibility and, since we have mentioned it, apostolic succession.


In the first place, Mary worship isn't taught by the church, Papal infallibility isn't what most people think it is. If the Pope teaches scripture truthfully he is infallible. It doesn't mean everything he could possibly ever say is true. And I know something about apostolic succession, what's your problem with it?
Quote

Mike >> About apostolic succession Let me ask you what letters are you going to pull up for your support? Let me tell you I have been on these forums for years so don't think you have something we have not already been through. My problem with it that they don't say what they want you to believe. Secondly they don't prove that your papacy was ordained of Christ.

QuoteWhat is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.

That's not your call, is it? From my POV some of you do not live up to your own beliefs. You talk about the simplicity of the faith, and I am down with that. Then you want to drag in all of these rules, like sprinkling and clergy/laity churches being "evil". So which is it? Is living in Christ a matter of faith or is it a series of "gotchas" that can trap you at every turn?

QuoteAlso which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible

It's in there, Catholics can make a better case for their beliefs than you can for yours. Don't you even want to know what they really say or do you want to labor under a delusion about what you think they say? (This is not to say that both of you are right, or neither of you are right, what I am saying is that you think you have your reasons, and they think they have theirs. ) But if you think you are going to make a case you have to make it.

QuoteI like how when evil is pointed out from your side of the river you look to the evil on the protestant side and say so what as if that makes everything on your side OK.

I am not saying that at all, I am telling you to get the plank out of your own eye. Is there a problem with that?

QuoteYour comment is not original but an evil and wicked attitude. First off the papacy was wicked long before Protestantism existed. Its not (SO WHAT) You point to evil Protestants as your excuse. I said it once before and will say again, it is true what Jesus said you paint your tombs white but inside they are full of death.

He didn't say that to me, I am not a Jew and I am not a Pharisee, he wasn't talking to me. You are reading your own agenda into the words of God Himself, how dare you?

Quote
Mike>> I don't bet, but for you that is a foolish one.

It wasn't a bet, it was a joke. I am not surprised you didn't get it.

Quote
Mike >> About apostolic succession Let me ask you what letters are you going to pull up for your support?

I could give you my own succession if I thought it would do any good. If you can't believe a little thing like baptismal sprinkling why would you believe a complicated succession? But that's beside the point. Apostolic succession is a matter of fact, even Red admits that the Apostles ordained Deacons. The Deacons eventually became priests, then Bishops (does the name Timothy ring a bell?) and ordained more Deacons, and eventually priests. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

Quote
Let me tell you I have been on these forums for years so don't think you have something we have not already been through.

Let me tell you that I have had this argument with more people than just you, and it is nothing but a distraction. That others claim apostolic succession is really none of your business. If you don't want to believe it, don't. That doesn't make us "evil". You are not God.

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 26, 2013 - 11:23:45

Quote
You may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me

Mike>> What is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.  So many times just words of convenience written in a book.
Also which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible, so then you say the magisterial can add what it wants. You have no substantial argument to say read the Catechism

The problem with the CCC of course is that it is not dogma, it is not an infallible truth and open for interpretation.
This creates sharp, and often unexplainable, contrasts.

For example.
The CCC teaches that Jews and Muslims are in some way also part of the plan of salvation.
This statement is not dogmatic defined.

What is dogmatic defined is this: That outside of the RCC there is no salvation.
This is further defined with the addition that those outside the RCC are anathema.

And here lies the crux of the matter. The RCC is at odds with her dogma's, and her dogma's are at odds with the denominations she would like to "come home".
Even denominations so closely related to her doctrines, such as the Orthodox churches, find themselves battling a system that has defined separation so absolute that in reality there is no platform for consolidation.

Vatican II attempted to level with these problems, but was found too liberal, and her definitions only made it to the stage of doctrine.
Although since Vatican II the CCC has adopted a more flexible tone, it really does not reflect the core teachings of the RCC justly and is therefore a highly insufficient document to base conclusions on.

Quote from: AVZ on Sun Oct 27, 2013 - 06:33:18

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 26, 2013 - 11:23:45

Quote
You may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me

Mike>> What is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.  So many times just words of convenience written in a book.
Also which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible, so then you say the magisterial can add what it wants. You have no substantial argument to say read the Catechism

The problem with the CCC of course is that it is not dogma, it is not an infallible truth and open for interpretation.
This creates sharp, and often unexplainable, contrasts.

For example.
The CCC teaches that Jews and Muslims are in some way also part of the plan of salvation.
This statement is not dogmatic defined.

What is dogmatic defined is this: That outside of the RCC there is no salvation.
This is further defined with the addition that those outside the RCC are anathema.

And here lies the crux of the matter. The RCC is at odds with her dogma's, and her dogma's are at odds with the denominations she would like to "come home".
Even denominations so closely related to her doctrines, such as the Orthodox churches, find themselves battling a system that has defined separation so absolute that in reality there is no platform for consolidation.

Vatican II attempted to level with these problems, but was found too liberal, and her definitions only made it to the stage of doctrine.
Although since Vatican II the CCC has adopted a more flexible tone, it really does not reflect the core teachings of the RCC justly and is therefore a highly insufficient document to base conclusions on.

What exactly do you think "dogma" is?

And who is the CCC?

Quote from: Reverend M on Sun Oct 27, 2013 - 07:13:53

Quote from: AVZ on Sun Oct 27, 2013 - 06:33:18

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 26, 2013 - 11:23:45

Quote
You may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me

Mike>> What is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.  So many times just words of convenience written in a book.
Also which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible, so then you say the magisterial can add what it wants. You have no substantial argument to say read the Catechism

The problem with the CCC of course is that it is not dogma, it is not an infallible truth and open for interpretation.
This creates sharp, and often unexplainable, contrasts.

For example.
The CCC teaches that Jews and Muslims are in some way also part of the plan of salvation.
This statement is not dogmatic defined.

What is dogmatic defined is this: That outside of the RCC there is no salvation.
This is further defined with the addition that those outside the RCC are anathema.

And here lies the crux of the matter. The RCC is at odds with her dogma's, and her dogma's are at odds with the denominations she would like to "come home".
Even denominations so closely related to her doctrines, such as the Orthodox churches, find themselves battling a system that has defined separation so absolute that in reality there is no platform for consolidation.

Vatican II attempted to level with these problems, but was found too liberal, and her definitions only made it to the stage of doctrine.
Although since Vatican II the CCC has adopted a more flexible tone, it really does not reflect the core teachings of the RCC justly and is therefore a highly insufficient document to base conclusions on.

What exactly do you think "dogma" is?

And who is the CCC?

Dogma:
- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

CCC:
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quote from: mclees8 on Sat Oct 26, 2013 - 11:23:45
Quote from: Reverend M on October 20, 2013, 09:03:38 AM
Quote
You may say that the things discussed here do not matter, I just so happen to strongly disagree with you.
Any extra-biblical practice enforced on the congregation matters. It matters to the congregation as much as it matters to the opposition.

The point is that you are making something out of it that isn't there. That's what I am trying to tell you. Pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church, find out what the RCC REALLY teaches. I think they are free online. THEN come back and see me.
Quote

Mike>> What is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.  So many times just words of convenience written in a book.
Also which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible, so then you say the magisterial can add what it wants. You have no substantial argument to say read the Catechism
A Catholic would tell you that praying to Saints and Mary certainly matters...


No, they wouldn't. You need to find out what they would say. There is an RCC website: http://www.catholic.com/ Go ask them, quit putting words in their mouths.
Quote
And here you are telling us that it doesn't matter at all.


It doesn't matter because it's not true, and a waste of time to debate it.
Quote
There is this saying: "practice what you preach".
Observing your wish that we should get around discussing things that do matter...where can I find your attempt to this?
I am not trying to diminish the correctness of your statement, but I would like to point out that convincing people here should be a combination of words and scriptural foundations.


I am just getting started, give me a break.
Quote
But the question is not if you have or not have lineage, the question is if such a lineage is valid and scriptural.


Compare it to the OT and see. The OT wasn't written for no reason - it also has the knowledge for salvation written into it.
Quote
I could, and I will, respond to you that the lineage is blackened with inequities. Popes got murdered for their position, the seat was traded and offered to the highest bidder, there are gaps without Popes and there are times where there even was more than one Pope.
And I am not even mentioning the times when Pope exercised horrible sins such as sodomy, killings and sexual immorality. (guess I mentioned it after all).


And the Protestant side has Oliver Cromwell, the Puritans, and the Salem Witch trials. So what?


Mike>> I like how when evil is pointed out from your side of the river you look to the evil on the protestant side and say so what as if that makes everything on your side OK. Your comment is not original but an evil and wicked attitude. First off the papacy was wicked long before Protestantism existed. Its not (SO WHAT) You point to evil Protestants as your excuse. I said it once before and will say again, it is true what Jesus said you paint your tombs white but inside they are full of death.
This is not about who is more wicked then the other. How foolish you speak. Evil is all through this thing we call Christianity. Do you think God plays favorites or his has a pet denomination so as to say my pet can be evil but the other will burn? You have forgotten that if there was only one sinner Christ died for him. I tell you Jesus has a bride among the tares and he knows each one by name. How will he say of you ? Will he say depart from me I don't know you? Quote


Hence such demand may also be directed to you. Instead of phrasing hollow statements...why not define them properly with relevant documented support?


If you want things to read I can certainly recommend some things, but I am not going to write a dissertation only to have it ignored or shouted down.
Quote
The first place of choice to draw support from must always be the Bible.


No, the church is here to teach us the Bible, it is then that you search the scriptures to find out if what you are being told is true. Too many people proceed blindly down alleys without understanding what they read, ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. For $20, where is that verse?

Mike>> I don't bet, but for you that is a foolish one. I have always admired those who could rattle off scripture and verse and have seen some good ones in my time, but are you trying to brag?
You know I know a lot of scripture and they all come to me when I need them, but I was never good a scritpture and verse. I know the scripture you speak of very well after over 35 years. I also have Strong's Full Concordance. Your scripture is in 2nd Tim 3:7 you can keep the 20.  Perhaps you think this verse does not apply to you. Perhaps you can tell us of this truth you don't thing we have yet. You know I once said there is no one so blind as the one who does not think he is blind. Quote


Don't believe me? Check out the background of the Mary worship, Papal infallibility and, since we have mentioned it, apostolic succession.


In the first place, Mary worship isn't taught by the church, Papal infallibility isn't what most people think it is. If the Pope teaches scripture truthfully he is infallible. It doesn't mean everything he could possibly ever say is true. And I know something about apostolic succession, what's your problem with it?
Quote

Mike >> About apostolic succession Let me ask you what letters are you going to pull up for your support? Let me tell you I have been on these forums for years so don't think you have something we have not already been through. My problem with it that they don't say what they want you to believe. Secondly they don't prove that your papacy was ordained of Christ.

Quote
What is a Catechism but a statment of belief? It does not mean that all follow it just as many say they read the Bible but it does not mean they live up to it.

That's not your call, is it? From my POV some of you do not live up to your own beliefs. You talk about the simplicity of the faith, and I am down with that. Then you want to drag in all of these rules, like sprinkling and clergy/laity churches being "evil". So which is it? Is living in Christ a matter of faith or is it a series of "gotchas" that can trap you at every turn?
Quote
Also which shall we say is Gods word when practices and beliefs stated in the Cathecism is not in the Bible

It's in there, Catholics can make a better case for their beliefs than you can for yours. Don't you even want to know what they really say or do you want to labor under a delusion about what you think they say? (This is not to say that both of you are right, or neither of you are right, what I am saying is that you think you have your reasons, and they think they have theirs. ) But if you think you are going to make a case you have to make it.

[color=green]Mike>>Make what case?  Its your Catechism what is that supposed to prove to us. Its just a convenience  just like you use scripture as a matter of convenience.  I already know what the Bible says and does not say [/color] Quote
I like how when evil is pointed out from your side of the river you look to the evil on the protestant side and say so what as if that makes everything on your side OK.
I am not saying that at all, I am telling you to get the plank out of your own eye. Is there a problem with that?

Yes because you don't want to see the evil of your own church. Most  here know that the Protestant churches  have a lot evil in it also.Iif not they should. The KKK was being encouraged by many protestant preachers. They didn't like Catholics either. These preachers were supposed to be Christians so there is no excuse to say so what. That's the rub. You see this is not about who is more evil than the other. You would excuse your church to say its Christ's true church no matter how wicked it past is.  The rub is what you say. "  So what."  Like the painter with his white wash.  Christ never ordained any church that is so wicked  and then say   So what  can you get it now? Evil is evil no matter what side of the road its on. If you have a relationship with Christ has it ever bothered you that all this wickedness exists in the church and why does It exist in the church that says they represent you on the earth . Why  is that Lord? Is all this a part of the church you founded. Do you think Jesus would say well I know that my represetives  are not perfect and have been a bad example at times but look at that protestants   So what
Quote[/color]Your comment is not original but an evil and wicked attitude. First off the papacy was wicked long before Protestantism existed. Its not (SO WHAT) You point to evil Protestants as your excuse. I said it once before and will say again, it is true what Jesus said you paint your tombs white but inside they are full of death.

He didn't say that to me, I am not a Jew and I am not a Pharisee, he wasn't talking to me. You are reading your own agenda into the words of God Himself, how dare you?

[color=green]You are upset and think I have no right to say that.  Why did Jesus say that of the Pharisees. Was it not because they put on a false front. Looking so good on the outside but inside they hypocrites who did not live up to what they preached. You were quick to point fingers at the protestant when AVZ pointed out the evils of your church who also put on the false front and did not live up to what they preach. Hence I have made no false statement and you just took it personal.[/color]Quote
Mike>> I don't bet, but for you that is a foolish one.

It wasn't a bet, it was a joke. I am not surprised you didn't get it.
Quote
Mike >> About apostolic succession Let me ask you what letters are you going to pull up for your support?

I could give you my own succession if I thought it would do any good. If you can't believe a little thing like baptismal sprinkling why would you believe a complicated succession? But that's beside the point. Apostolic succession is a matter of fact, even Red admits that the Apostles ordained Deacons. The Deacons eventually became priests, then Bishops (does the name Timothy ring a bell?) and ordained more Deacons, and eventually priests. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

I never said that leaders passed their leadership to others. The problem comes when passed on leadership that was humble stops being the leaderdership that was originally passed. Things like humble leadership that is not bragged and flaunted to a leadership that is full of pride and ambition and waving a flag so all will know it. Parading their authority and being corrupt. I think we touched on this already.  Quote
Let me tell you I have been on these forums for years so don't think you have something we have not already been through.

Let me tell you that I have had this argument with more people than just you, and it is nothing but a distraction. That others claim apostolic succession is really none of your business. If you don't want to believe it, don't. That doesn't make us "evil". You are not God.

[color=green]Maybe you have but now with you can be distracted by me. But I can be a real hound dog. Giving up is not one of my traits.[/color]

[size=14pt]I think some of this post mest up and I apologize. I never got the nack of posting point counter point like every one else. I have tried but it never posts for me .[/size]

QuoteYes because you don't want to see the evil of your own church.

What IS my church? You don't even know, and where is that moderator with the double standards?

Quote
You are upset and think I have no right to say that.  Why did Jesus say that of the Pharisees. Was it not because they put on a false front. Looking so good on the outside but inside they hypocrites who did not live up to what they preached. You were quick to point fingers at the protestant when AVZ pointed out the evils of your church who also put on the false front and did not live up to what they preach. Hence I have made no false statement and you just took it personal.

AVZ doesn't know what he is talking about, he doesn't even know what my church is. Neither do you. And you don't know anything about me, how do you know who I am?

QuoteThe problem comes when passed on leadership that was humble stops being the leaderdership that was originally passed.

Well, I haven't seen too many models of humility on this site, either. My point stands, get the plank out of your own eye.

Let's recap:

Get your facts straight.

Judge not or you will be judged by your own words.

Dishonesty ain't too cool, either.

Hate is not Christianity.

Sermon over, have a nice life.

Quote from: Reverend M on Sun Oct 27, 2013 - 13:48:34

QuoteYes because you don't want to see the evil of your own church.

What IS my church? You don't even know, and where is that moderator with the double standards?

Quote
You are upset and think I have no right to say that.  Why did Jesus say that of the Pharisees. Was it not because they put on a false front. Looking so good on the outside but inside they hypocrites who did not live up to what they preached. You were quick to point fingers at the protestant when AVZ pointed out the evils of your church who also put on the false front and did not live up to what they preach. Hence I have made no false statement and you just took it personal.

AVZ doesn't know what he is talking about, he doesn't even know what my church is. Neither do you. And you don't know anything about me, how do you know who I am?

QuoteThe problem comes when passed on leadership that was humble stops being the leaderdership that was originally passed.

Well, I haven't seen too many models of humility on this site, either. My point stands, get the plank out of your own eye.

Let's recap:

Get your facts straight.

Judge not or you will be judged by your own words.

Dishonesty ain't too cool, either.

Hate is not Christianity.

Sermon over, have a nice life.

And I was just beginning to like you

Take a breath, people.  As a policy, I avoid cheerleading or personally condemning posts.  Attack the ideas, not the people.  The best way to fight (verbally, that is).

Back to the original post, anyone know why we even have an NT canon?  Hint: The answer is NOT so we could have a written book to guide us in all things.  The answer is surprising.

Accurate Copies

These manuscripts represent the manuscripts from which the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text was taken.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

Corrupted Copies

These manuscripts represent the corrupted copies of the Bible, also known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily.

There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% account for the differences between the King James and the modern versions.

The modern versions had to use the Textus Receptus, since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that, when the Textus Receptus disagreed with the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the Textus Receptus.

Yeah, but how did we decide which books go in the NT.  They were written at different times and different places. 

The answer is simple    GOD   Nothing we have today is corrupted for God will not allow that for the book we call Holy and divine. As for the original post, why do protestants use a book of Catholic origin"

Its because of the above statement not because the Catholics had anything to do with it. You keep saying something about corrupted parts. I find nothing corrupt and that is not life giving.

It is not Gods fault that most do no live up it or corrupt its standards from without or by adding to or taking away.

Just one more thing.     The word of God will be our indictment for the good or the bad on that day.

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Oct 27, 2013 - 18:03:41
Yeah, but how did we decide which books go in the NT.  They were written at different times and different places. 

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 09:14:10
The answer is simple    GOD   

And how did God communicate that decision to mankind?

long before the Catholic church existed....

Quote from: Helen on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 10:09:44
long before the Catholic church existed....

Are we playing a cryptic game here where you give us an answer and we guess what the question was?

Did you not remember your own question, Winsome?

the OT canon was settled about 400 BC by the Jewish leaders, primarily Ezra and Nehemiah.  The NT canon was pretty much settled before the end of the first century as being materials from eyewitnesses (and Luke's Gospel) and approved by them.  For instance, Peter declared Paul's writings to be Scripture.  Within about fifty years after that, a number of questionable letters and writings had been declined in terms of admission and there was only Revelation and Jude which were questioned later.  The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with it except try to take credit when they approved of the list already assembled.  They also added books that had been rejected by the Jews and the early church.

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 09:30:14
Just one more thing.     The word of God will be our indictment for the good or the bad on that day.

Maybe the words of Jesus, or perhaps the Word of God. I doubt that God's going to be leafing through a Bible.

Not so much "rejected by the Jews" as never considered for inclusion. They were written in Greek whereas the Hebrew scriptures were written in Hebrew.

The reason they got included is in how the Greeks maintained the LXX. It was originally just the 5 books of Torah that Alexander the Great wanted. He never saw their completion.  The Greek/Macedonian generals that took over his kingdom decided to continue the work thru the whole of the Tenach (protestant canon of OT), and these other greek writings got lumped in there as well.

Quote from: DaveW on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 10:36:47
Not so much "rejected by the Jews" as never considered for inclusion. They were written in Greek whereas the Hebrew scriptures were written in Hebrew.

The reason they got included is in how the Greeks maintained the LXX. It was originally just the 5 books of Torah that Alexander the Great wanted. He never saw their completion.  The Greek/Macedonian generals that took over his kingdom decided to continue the work thru the whole of the Tenach (protestant canon of OT), and these other greek writings got lumped in there as well.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

Quote from: Helen on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 10:26:45
Did you not remember your own question, Winsome?

If that was an attempt to answer to my question then it failed miserably.

Quote from: Helen on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 10:26:45
the OT canon was settled about 400 BC by the Jewish leaders, primarily Ezra and Nehemiah.  The NT canon was pretty much settled before the end of the first century as being materials from eyewitnesses (and Luke's Gospel) and approved by them.  For instance, Peter declared Paul's writings to be Scripture.  Within about fifty years after that, a number of questionable letters and writings had been declined in terms of admission and there was only Revelation and Jude which were questioned later.  The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with it except try to take credit when they approved of the list already assembled.  They also added books that had been rejected by the Jews and the early church.

OT Canon - not agreed by the Jews in 400 BC.In Jesus' day the Pharisees & Saducees disagreed about which books were acceptable. In about 94 AD there was reputed to be a council at Jamnia which settled it but didn't. It was more like the 3rd century AD before the majority of Jews finalised their canon, 200+ years after the Christians had accepted the LXX as their OT Canon.

NT - not finalised until the Council of Rome in 384 AD, even then it took several local councils to finally accept it.
According to you all but Revelation and Jude were accepted by about 180, which it totally untrue. The Council of Nicaea in 325 still questioned the canonicity of James, 2Peter 2 John, 3 John and Jude.

You say "The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with it except try to take credit when they approved of the list already assembled."
Assembled by who?

There were many lists assembled by many people. That is why there were disputes. The big question is who had the authority to make a final decision. As you admit it was the Catholic Church that approved the canon.

oh help....never mind, Winsome.  We have been over this before.  I gave you a timeline of what was accepted and by whom before.  The RC church can no more take credit for the canon than I could if I decided to 'officially accept' it right now. 

Quote from: Helen on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 12:58:19
oh help....never mind, Winsome.  We have been over this before.  I gave you a timeline of what was accepted and by whom before.  The RC church can no more take credit for the canon than I could if I decided to 'officially accept' it right now. 

You might find this detailed timeline and analysis helpful. It is by a Catholic but compiled from Protestant sources. It shows that your simplistic notions are false.

http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/new-testament-canon.html

Quote from: winsome on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 13:08:29
You might find this detailed timeline and analysis helpful. It is by a Catholic but compiled from Protestant sources. It shows that your simplistic notions are false.

http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/new-testament-canon.html

I find it ironic that you call Helen's post "simplistic" then present a link to a blog that is even more simplistic than what Helen wrote.  The author left out a lot of information and presented an incomplete picture.

Quote from: BondServant on Tue Oct 29, 2013 - 11:02:24

Quote from: winsome on Mon Oct 28, 2013 - 13:08:29
You might find this detailed timeline and analysis helpful. It is by a Catholic but compiled from Protestant sources. It shows that your simplistic notions are false.

http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/new-testament-canon.html

I find it ironic that you call Helen's post "simplistic" then present a link to a blog that is even more simplistic than what Helen wrote.  The author left out a lot of information and presented an incomplete picture.

I find it even more ironic that there is more information there than ever Helen gives in her sweeping claims.

Would you care to add in the missing information?

Quote from: Mirage on Tue Oct 15, 2013 - 20:41:23
History clearly proves the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics and for Catholics.

I do not understand why any Protestant would use the Holy Bile considering how deeply Protestants despise the Catholic faith and the fact the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics and for Catholics.

The fact Protestants still use a Holy Bible shows, the Catholic Church still prevails over Protestants.

I came from the Catholic Church I was there for 50 years.

In all that time we did not use a bible !   I went to the school for 6 years
And we did not use the bible there either.
The priest or the nuns, did not tell us to use the bible !
I took our children to mass all the time.   The church had no school.
Our one son was even a alter boy !
But even he was not told to use a bible...  and he was born in l960 !

Quote from: grams on Thu Oct 31, 2013 - 05:59:52

Quote from: Mirage on Tue Oct 15, 2013 - 20:41:23
History clearly proves the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics and for Catholics.

I do not understand why any Protestant would use the Holy Bile considering how deeply Protestants despise the Catholic faith and the fact the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics and for Catholics.

The fact Protestants still use a Holy Bible shows, the Catholic Church still prevails over Protestants.

I came from the Catholic Church I was there for 50 years.

In all that time we did not use a bible !   I went to the school for 6 years
And we did not use the bible there either.
The priest or the nuns, did not tell us to use the bible !
I took our children to mass all the time.   The church had no school.
Our one son was even a alter boy !
But even he was not told to use a bible...  and he was born in l960 !

You read the Bible at every Mass, grams, you should have been paying more attention.

Quote from: MirageThe fact Protestants still use a Holy Bible shows, the Catholic Church still prevails over Protestants.

I believe the poster here is confusing the 2 different senses of the word "catholic." The 'Universal'/catholic body of Messiah agreed on the list of books to include in the canon.

That is DIFFERENT from the Roman 'Catholic' denomination as it exists today.  The 2 should not EVER be confused.

If you are talking about denominations then it would seem to me that it was the ORTHODOX church and not the Catholics that determined the canon.

Because it makes me laugh, I used a search-replace on the original post...

Quote from: Mirage

History clearly proves the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics Jews and for Catholics Jews.

I do not understand why any Protestant Catholics would use the Holy Bile (does that make you sick?) considering how deeply Protestant Catholics despise the Catholics Jewish faith and the fact the Holy Bible was assembled  by Catholics Jews and for Catholics Jews.

The fact Protestant Catholics still use a Holy Bible shows, the Catholics Jewish Church still prevails over Protestant Catholics.