Bible alone?

[Tantor]

Banished-

I never mentioned Kennedy's funeral, and really didn't wish to single him out as an adulterer; John Kerry, or, to remain bipartisan, Rudy Giuliani, could easily fill the bill.

I was criticising a sanctioned practise that dissolves marriages in order to allow philanderers to remain in the Church's good graces.

Where do the Protestants fit into Western Civilization?

Beats me...

Perhaps you should ask a Protestant...

John Calvin's governance legacy pretty much dominate Western Culture these days... whether you know it or not.. its the truth.

Democracy, Capitalism, individualism and most other ethos that came to start America and dominated western Europ are modeled after Calvin's Geneva model and ethos.

[normfromga]

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord.
If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

The word used in your paraphrase (unless you can find "...is the equivalent to..." in an ancient manuscript) as "profaning" is actually enochos, which might mean " bound to", "liable for", or even "guilty of," but not, literally, "murder."

Speaking of literal, if the Eucharist involves the literal body and blood of our Lord, wouldn't the Apostles' admonition to the new saints in Antioch (Acts 15:29), to abstain from blood, seem a little restricting?

[Maybe it was faulty info  because the council was being led by James, not Cephas... ]

[TradCath]

we were never commanded to take up arms in the name of Christ.. as a matter of fact Christ tells us to love our enemies.. not kill them.

Tantor...you are one of the more ignorant people Ive wrote to.
But its typical.
So few know their history or their Bible.

Christ Commanded People to 'Sell your cloaks and buy a sword if you dont own one'

Christ also said.. 'I did Not come to Bring Peace but the Sword'

Of course we are called to defend ourselves.
We have that God Given Right.


We are to pray for our enemies and love them,
I pray for the Perfidious Jews every Friday and those of other faiths ie Muslims, Protest-ant Heetics, but we are also to Rebuke them.


Calvin Was  Jew
He was honored as such.
Jews, as enemies of Christ, and Against or Anti Christ,  introduced almost every Heresy into Christianity and that why there are over 35,000 Competing Protest-ant Sects today.





'Martin Luther yielded to the influence of his Jewish friends unknowingly, and again, by Jewish authority, and with Jewish finance, his plot against the Catholic Church met with success. But unfortunately he discovered the deception, and became a threat to us, so we disposed of him as we have so many others who dare to oppose us. . .

Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation.
We have founded many secret associations, which all work for our purpose, under our orders and our direction.
We have made it an honor, a great honor, for the Gentiles to join us in our organizations (such as Masonry), which are, thanks to our gold, flourishing now more than ever. Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our plot, should never know that those associations are of our creation, and that they serve our purpose.

We have induced some of our children to join the Christian Body, with the explicit intimation that they should work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of the Christian Church, by creating scandals within her. We have thus followed the advice of our Prince of the Jews, who so wisely said: 'Let some of your children become cannons, so that they may destroy the Church.' Unfortunately, not all among the 'convert' Jews have proved faithful to their mission.
"As long as there remains among the Gentiles any moral conception of the social order, and until all faith, patriotism, and dignity are uprooted, our reign over the world shall not come . . .. And the Gentiles, in their stupidity, have proved easier dupes than we expected them to be.

(Phillip II, by William Thomas Walsh, p. 248: 'The origin of Calvin' (whose real name was Chauvin).. See also: Lucin Wolf, in Transactions, Jewish Historical Society of England, Vol. XI, p. 8; Goris, Les Colonies Marchandes Meridionales à Anvers; Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, III, 413).'
Speeches delivered at the B'nai B'rith Convention in Paris explain Jewish role in the Protestant Reformation and Secret Societies
(London Gazette, February, 1936; and in Paris Le Reveil du Peuple)

[Tantor]

we were never commanded to take up arms in the name of Christ.. as a matter of fact Christ tells us to love our enemies.. not kill them.

Tantor...you are one of the more ignorant people Ive wrote to.
But its typical.
So few know their history or their Bible.

Christ Commanded People to 'Sell your cloaks and buy a sword if you dont own one'

Christ also said.. 'I did Not come to Bring Peace but the Sword'

Of course we are called to defend ourselves.
We have that God Given Right.


We are to pray for our enemies and love them,
I pray for the Perfidious Jews every Friday and those of other faiths ie Muslims, Protest-ant Heetics, but we are also to Rebuke them.

Such a racist... I would be careful how you post such racism on this board.

As far as your other questions

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
  " 'a man against his father,
     a daughter against her mother,
  a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
   36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

This refers to enemies within our own household only.


As far as defending ourselves... God told us to turn the other cheek and if someone robs us, give them more then they are seeking.

We do not have a right to defend ourselves.. according to the New Testament.  For God is our protector... if we defend ourselves we do not have sufficient faith in the Lord.

And so what if Calvin was a Jew?... he has had a bigger impact on western society (whether that is good or bad is irrelevant due to your question) then the catholic church..

[banished]

Tantor,

The Words Christ used at the Last Supper before his Crucifixion were not 'Hocus Pocus'

I also feel sorry and ashamed for you..

[Tantor]

Tantor,

The Words Christ used at the Last Supper before his Crucifixion were not 'Hocus Pocus'

I also feel sorry and ashamed for you..

No miracle or transubstantiation involved... just symbolism.

Then you have the problem with the fact that Jesus may have already returned and the RCC wasn't ready for it.... if Jesus did return is communion still a viable practice?

[banished]

Banished-

I never mentioned Kennedy's funeral, and really didn't wish to single him out as an adulterer; John Kerry, or, to remain bipartisan, Rudy Giuliani, could easily fill the bill.

I was criticising a sanctioned practise that dissolves marriages in order to allow philanderers to remain in the Church's good graces.

Where do the Protestants fit into Western Civilization?

Beats me...

Perhaps you should ask a Protestant...

Normfromga-

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more, plus everyone knows that Dispentation and Radical Sanation fees go directly into the Bishop's 401K.  If my wife was to agree to go back we could get a retroactive validity, but she wont.  If I go back alone I need a Radical Sanation, but only if she agrees to live with a Catholic.  I doubt that she would do that?  When I have EWTN tuned in on my TV, she walks over and shuts it off.

You say that you are not a Protestant. Please explain that.   

[banished]

Tantor,

The Words Christ used at the Last Supper before his Crucifixion were not 'Hocus Pocus'

I also feel sorry and ashamed for you..

No miracle or transubstantiation involved... just symbolism.

Then you have the problem with the fact that Jesus may have already returned and the RCC wasn't ready for it.... if Jesus did return is communion still a viable practice?

Tantor,

We could go back and forth about transubstantiation or symbolism all day. The tradition of our Western Civilation says that it was transubstantiation, period!  You can't change a 2,000 year tradition.

[Tantor]

Tantor,

The Words Christ used at the Last Supper before his Crucifixion were not 'Hocus Pocus'

I also feel sorry and ashamed for you..

No miracle or transubstantiation involved... just symbolism.

Then you have the problem with the fact that Jesus may have already returned and the RCC wasn't ready for it.... if Jesus did return is communion still a viable practice?

Tantor,

We could go back and forth about transubstantiation or symbolism all day.  The tradition of our Western Civilation says that it was transubstantiation, period!  You can be a Protestant in protest who is outside the Western Culture and supports the Gates of Hell, but you can't change a 2,000 year tradition.

The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[3] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood."[1]

Wrong again... it magically popped up 1100 years after Christ.... definitely not a 2000 year tradition.

Polycarp, Justin the Martyr and others did not believe in transubstiation.. they believed in symbols.. the same can be said of almost all early church father writings up until the 400's

The borg is strong with you....

[banished]

Tantor,

The Words Christ used at the Last Supper before his Crucifixion were not 'Hocus Pocus'

I also feel sorry and ashamed for you..

No miracle or transubstantiation involved... just symbolism.

Then you have the problem with the fact that Jesus may have already returned and the RCC wasn't ready for it.... if Jesus did return is communion still a viable practice?

Tantor,

We could go back and forth about transubstantiation or symbolism all day.  The tradition of our Western Civilation says that it was transubstantiation, period!  You can be a Protestant in protest who is outside the Western Culture and supports the Gates of Hell, but you can't change a 2,000 year tradition.

The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Savardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133), in the eleventh century and by the end of the twelfth century the term was in widespread use.[3] In 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been C, by God's power, into his body and blood."[1]

Wrong again... it magically popped up 1100 years after Christ.... definitely not a 2000 year tradition.

Polycarp, Justin the Martyr and others did not believe in transubstiation.. they believed in symbols.. the same can be said of almost all early church father writings up until the 400's

The borg is strong with you....

Tantor,

Sorry, but you have been mis-informed again.  Hold tight, I will go look it up for you.  The Roman Catholic Chruch keeps accurate records, so there is no problem getting the information.  Off the top of my head, as early as 100 AD Catholics were complaining about the heathens who didn't believe in the transubstantiated took place in Communion during the Roman Catholic Mass.  Maybe it was 46 AD?

[farouk]

1 Cor. 11: "This do in remembrance of me."

[banished]

Okay Tantor, here is the stuff:

During the first 1,000 years of the church history there isn't a single early church father or writing that claims that the Eucharist is a memorial meal.  There is none! Period!  Plus, there was no challenge to the Eucharist until Luther, and then he didn't go all the way to eliminate it.  75 years after Luther there were over 200 interpretation of what the Eucharist was, proving the confusion that Luther brought into the Christian Faith.

Lets leave out the Gospels and listen to the Bishops, because you would probably say that the Catholics are misinterpreting the Bible.  First, lets see what St. Ignatius the Bishop of Antioch wrote:  Remember Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John and was Bishop of Antioch. He died approximately 107 AD.  For many years Ignatius was under the supervision of the Apostle John, so for him to misunderstand John on the Eucharist is impossible.



St. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch 1st Century writes:

 

(quote)
The heretics confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins.  And, which the Father in his goodness raised up again. Take heed then to have but one Eucharist for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ.

                                            -St. Ignatius of Antioch
(End of quote)



A 2nd Century Bishop writes:



(quote)
How can they say that the flesh which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with his blood passes into corruption?"
         
               -Irenaeus, 2nd Century
(end of quote)



Now Justin Martry, early 2nd Century, a great defender of the Catholic Faith:



(quote)
We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it except the one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the remission of sins, Since Jesus Christ, our Savior, was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood so too we have been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharist prayer.  And set down by him and by the change of which our blood and flesh in nourished, is both the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus.

              -Justin Martyr, early 2nd Century
(end of quote)


Note: I hope that you noticed that Justin Martyr used the term, "Eucharist prayer", because there is very little difference in the Mass during Justin Martyr's time (early 2ND Century) and the present day Roman Catholic Mass.  Also, he talked about the faithful being the only ones permitted.  I assume that, "washed in the remission of sins" meant baptism? 

[farouk]

Go back further; back to 1 Cor. 11, and Matt. 26, and Mark 14, and Luke 22.

[Tantor]

The Roman Catholic Chruch keeps accurate records

That statement was really good for a laugh... The RCC writes its own version of history.

[banished]

The Roman Catholic Chruch keeps accurate records

That statement was really good for a laugh... The RCC writes its own version of history.

Tantor,

I am disappointed in you.  After I spent all afternoon researching the the actual writings of the early church fathers you laughed it off as a joke. 

[Tantor]

The Roman Catholic Chruch keeps accurate records

That statement was really good for a laugh... The RCC writes its own version of history.

Tantor,

I am disappointed in you.  After I spent all afternoon researching the the actual writings of the early church fathers you laughed it off as a joke. 

All afternoon?.. I found all those examples you posted in one google search.  And they are all listed in the wikipedia article on transubstiation.

Oh well.

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+history+of+transubstantiation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[banished]

Go back further; back to 1 Cor. 11, and Matt. 26, and Mark 14, and Luke 22.

Hello farouk,

One of the problems with Protestants reading the Bible that the Catholics wrote with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is that they don't understand the original meaning of the Greek words like the Catholics do.

I am not qualified to teach the diversity of theological interpretations, but here it goes:

The Greek word "anamnesis" meaning memorial or remembrance found in the epistles of St Paul does not merely suggest a group of interested persons collected in a room thinking about someone they all know, and passing around a large plate of bread crumbs and tiny plastic cups of grape juice.  During a Roman Catholic Eucharist the Christian does not simply remember an event that happened more than two thousand years ago, but instead enters personally into the saving act of Christ in the here and now, as it is acturalized and made present to him or her in the liturgy.  In plain English the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 

I hope and pray that you can insert the real meaning of the Greek word, "amamnesis" into those Bible verses that you posted.

[farouk]

No, by God's grace I wish to 'receive meekly the engrafted word', the same Word which the Holy Spirit gave.

Go back further; back to 1 Cor. 11, and Matt. 26, and Mark 14, and Luke 22.

Hello farouk,

One of the problems with Protestants reading the Bible that the Catholics wrote with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is that they don't understand the original meaning of the Greek words like the Catholics do.

I am not qualified to teach the diversity of theological interpretations, but here it goes:

The Greek word "anamnesis" meaning memorial or remembrance found in the epistles of St Paul does not merely suggest a group of interested persons collected in a room thinking about someone they all know, and passing around a large plate of bread crumbs and tiny plastic cups of grape juice.  During a Roman Catholic Eucharist the Christian does not simply remember an event that happened more than two thousand years ago, but instead enters personally into the saving act of Christ in the here and now, as it is acturalized and made present to him or her in the liturgy.  In plain English the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 

I hope and pray that you can insert the real meaning of the Greek word, "amamnesis" into those Bible verses that you posted.

[banished]

No, by God's grace I wish to 'receive meekly the engrafted word', the same Word which the Holy Spirit gave.

Go back further; back to 1 Cor. 11, and Matt. 26, and Mark 14, and Luke 22.

Hello farouk,

One of the problems with Protestants reading the Bible that the Catholics wrote with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is that they don't understand the original meaning of the Greek words like the Catholics do.

I am not qualified to teach the diversity of theological interpretations, but here it goes:

The Greek word "anamnesis" meaning memorial or remembrance found in the epistles of St Paul does not merely suggest a group of interested persons collected in a room thinking about someone they all know, and passing around a large plate of bread crumbs and tiny plastic cups of grape juice.  During a Roman Catholic Eucharist the Christian does not simply remember an event that happened more than two thousand years ago, but instead enters personally into the saving act of Christ in the here and now, as it is acturalized and made present to him or her in the liturgy.  In plain English the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 

I hope and pray that you can insert the real meaning of the Greek word, "amamnesis" into those Bible verses that you posted.

Hello farouk,

The key term here is the Greek word anamnesis, usually translated 'remembrance,' which in this context means 'recall by making present.'  You forgot to mention John 6 which favors that use of the Greek word anamnesis.

[normfromga]

You say that you are not a Protestant. Please explain that.   

No mystery.

Many here claim to be of Cephas; others are of Calvin, or are Lutherans or, as you mentioned, Wesleyans.

We do not wish to protest against any of these beliefs or traditions, but we are of Christ, and thus are Christians only.

[banished]

The Roman Catholic Chruch keeps accurate records

That statement was really good for a laugh... The RCC writes its own version of history.

Tantor,

I am disappointed in you.  After I spent all afternoon researching the the actual writings of the early church fathers you laughed it off as a joke. 

All afternoon?.. I found all those examples you posted in one google search.  And they are all listed in the wikipedia article on transubstiation.

Oh well.

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+history+of+transubstantiation&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yes, I should have revealed my source, because I don't always trust Wikipedia.  I apologize.  I have a 2 DVD set of the 13 EWTN Episodes, "What Catholic Really Believe" with Father Fete before he passed away.  Honestly, whether you are Catholic, Protestant, or what ever, if you want the stuff, Fr Fete will manifest it in a way that that only a Catholic Priest can.

 

For my forum message I hit the pause button on the DVD Player control, and typed by hand the writing of the early church fathers shown on the screen.

Here is the Web Site with a short video sample:



http://ninevehscrossing.com/Order-WCRB.html

[mclees8]

No, by God's grace I wish to 'receive meekly the engrafted word', the same Word which the Holy Spirit gave.

Go back further; back to 1 Cor. 11, and Matt. 26, and Mark 14, and Luke 22.

Hello farouk,

One of the problems with Protestants reading the Bible that the Catholics wrote with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is that they don't understand the original meaning of the Greek words like the Catholics do.

I am not qualified to teach the diversity of theological interpretations, but here it goes:

The Greek word "anamnesis" meaning memorial or remembrance found in the epistles of St Paul does not merely suggest a group of interested persons collected in a room thinking about someone they all know, and passing around a large plate of bread crumbs and tiny plastic cups of grape juice.  During a Roman Catholic Eucharist the Christian does not simply remember an event that happened more than two thousand years ago, but instead enters personally into the saving act of Christ in the here and now, as it is acturalized and made present to him or her in the liturgy.  In plain English the Roman Catholic Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 

I hope and pray that you can insert the real meaning of the Greek word, "amamnesis" into those Bible verses that you posted.

Hello farouk,

The key term here is the Greek word anamnesis, usually translated 'remembrance,' which in this context means 'recall by making present.'  You forgot to mention John 6 which favors that use of the Greek word anamnesis.

Dear banihed I looked up remembrance as it is used at the last supper in the Stongs Concordance  It states anamnesis---from recolection---- remembrance ---(again)

[normfromga]

The key term here is the Greek word anamnesis, usually translated 'remembrance,' which in this context means 'recall by making present.'  You forgot to mention John 6 which favors that use of the Greek word anamnesis.

But the noun is only used four times in the NT, and the fourth time is in Hebrews 10:3.

If it meant anything more than a reminder, wouldn't that mean the author was saying that animal sacrafices were reenacting sins year after year?  I don't think that makes much sense.

BTW, why the would the Apostles warn the church at Antioch to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29) if they believed in transubstantiation?

[Fallen Knight]

Well quite obviously, because there is no physical blood associated with transubstantiation. It is not re-sacrificing Christ, it is offering up the one true sacrifice of Our Lord.

I assume someone here has already quoted Saint Ignatius who wrote in approx 96AD "They refrain from our prayer and Eucharist for they do not believe the bread we eat is the flesh of Our Lord Jesus"

Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John ( hmmmmm I wonder where Iggy got his instruction from?)

Given the choice of listening to one of the first Christians who was instructed by a Disciple, and some 2009 Protestant self interpretation,.............I'll take the Bible, the Apostle John and Saint Ignatius anyday

Peace

[banished]

The key term here is the Greek word anamnesis, usually translated 'remembrance,' which in this context means 'recall by making present.'  You forgot to mention John 6 which favors that use of the Greek word anamnesis.

But the noun is only used four times in the NT, and the fourth time is in Hebrews 10:3.

If it meant anything more than a reminder, wouldn't that mean the author was saying that animal sacrafices were reenacting sins year after year?  I don't think that makes much sense.

BTW, why the would the Apostles warn the church at Antioch to abstain from blood (Acts 15:29) if they believed in transubstantiation?

Hello normfromga,

Catholics answer challenges about the Pope and Eucharist all the time. Let talk about some of our more interesting adventures.  Long before the Internet and Satellite Television I used to be a Ham Radio Operator, and my favorite pass time was searching the Shortwave Radio bands for crackpots.  One of the more interesting Prophets was Brother Stair.  Before each shortwave radio broadcast the Ram's horn would sound and this announcement would follow: "This is the Voice of the Last Day Prophet of God, Jesus Christ is Coming in Your Lifetime  This is the Last Generation.  Prepare to Meet Your God.   MARANATHA!"

Then Brother Stair would preach about the evil Pope of the Catholic Church and also the end of the World.  It's all on the Internet now, and Brother Stair has his own Web Site.  There is also another Web Page about all the Prophets legal problems.  They used to have a camp of old travel trailer in Walterbolo, SC.  Do you know anything about this group?

If I were to leave the Catholic Church I would be tempted to drive my motor home down to one of these doomsday cults and camp with them for a while.  Just to here what they have to say.   Very interesting people!

[mclees8]

Well quite obviously, because there is no physical blood associated with transubstantiation. It is not re-sacrificing Christ, it is offering up the one true sacrifice of Our Lord.

I assume someone here has already quoted Saint Ignatius who wrote in approx 96AD "They refrain from our prayer and Eucharist for they do not believe the bread we eat is the flesh of Our Lord Jesus"

Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John ( hmmmmm I wonder where Iggy got his instruction from?)

Given the choice of listening to one of the first Christians who was instructed by a Disciple, and some 2009 Protestant self interpretation,.............I'll take the Bible, the Apostle John and Saint Ignatius anyday

Peace

It may be that there was difference of opinion even back then. There is clearly argument for both sides. Jesus does not preach condemnation or that if you believe one way or the other that you are not saved or committed the unpardonable sin. Ignatius was not one of the twelve. don't you think it possible that he was stressing his view. I believe there were other bishops who may have seen it as symbolic but he catholc church would only present the ones that believe it is transformed  Another thing, the word Eucharist refers to the Ordinance and has no bearing one way or the other.    I find it strange that in chapter six he told those people that followed Him around the lake knowing that they were just wanting to see miracles something that offended them so that they would turn away because they were not truly seeing Him for who he was. they were only fascinated by Him It is also true that if Jesus turned water into wine he could make the wine bread his flesh and blood.  I don't think even the catholic church condemns Protestant communion as far as ones salvation. That is not of the last council any way.

I think he wanted people to understand that he was not just a miracle man but he Son of God. That was the whole issue. There is no further instruction by the Lord or by the apostle Paul that the bread and wine are transformed or that one must believe this.
  What do you think Night ?
God bless

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Well quite obviously, because there is no physical blood associated with transubstantiation. It is not re-sacrificing Christ, it is offering up the one true sacrifice of Our Lord.

I assume someone here has already quoted Saint Ignatius who wrote in approx 96AD "They refrain from our prayer and Eucharist for they do not believe the bread we eat is the flesh of Our Lord Jesus"

Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John ( hmmmmm I wonder where Iggy got his instruction from?)

Given the choice of listening to one of the first Christians who was instructed by a Disciple, and some 2009 Protestant self interpretation,.............I'll take the Bible, the Apostle John and Saint Ignatius anyday

Peace

The Ignatian epistles (save 1 maybe 2) are pseudephigraphal.  Just saying.

[EDWARDJL]

The Bible says nowhere that is is the sole rule of faith. Every word in the Bible is true and inspired by God. That is not the same as saying that God cannot convey his truth through other means.

The Bible is the written word. There is also the deposits of faith (oral word) that has been passed down from the time of Jesus. The most important word is Jesus, the incarnate word of God, who reveals his truth through God's Holy Spirit.

The Protestant view uses a faulty premise. All scripture is good and inspired by God. But not everything that is good and inspired by God is written down in scripture, as St. John makes clear in his Gospel.

25 " But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"

[farouk]

Psalm 119.105

1 Peter 1.23

John 17.14, etc.

The Word of God in these verses is counted to be so authoritative that mere human opinion cannot be construed as being on a par with it.

The Bible says nowhere that is is the sole rule of faith. Every word in the Bible is true and inspired by God. That is not the same as saying that God cannot convey his truth through other means.

The Bible is the written word. There is also the deposits of faith (oral word) that has been passed down from the time of Jesus. The most important word is Jesus, the incarnate word of God, who reveals his truth through God's Holy Spirit.

The Protestant view uses a faulty premise. All scripture is good and inspired by God. But not everything that is good and inspired by God is written down in scripture, as St. John makes clear in his Gospel.

25 " But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"

[banished]

Psalm 119.105

1 Peter 1.23

John 17.14, etc.

The Word of God in these verses is counted to be so authoritative that mere human opinion cannot be construed as being on a par with it.

The Bible says nowhere that is is the sole rule of faith. Every word in the Bible is true and inspired by God. That is not the same as saying that God cannot convey his truth through other means.

The Bible is the written word. There is also the deposits of faith (oral word) that has been passed down from the time of Jesus. The most important word is Jesus, the incarnate word of God, who reveals his truth through God's Holy Spirit.

The Protestant view uses a faulty premise. All scripture is good and inspired by God. But not everything that is good and inspired by God is written down in scripture, as St. John makes clear in his Gospel.

25 " But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"

You posted that in the Catholic Section, so I assume that you want the Catholic perspective? Protestantism's chief "proof text" for sola Scriptura, 2 Tim 3:16, fails, since it says that the Bible is profitable, but not sufficient for learning and righteousness. Catholicism agrees it is great for these purposes, but not exclusively so, as in Protestantism. Secondly, when St. Paul speaks of "Scripture" here, the NT didn't yet exist (not definitively for over 300 more years), thus he is referring to the OT only. This would mean that NT wasn't necessary for the rule of faith, if sola Scriptura were true, and if it were supposedly alluded to in this verse!

[EDWARDJL]

Psalms 119
________________________________________
105    Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

1 Peter 1
________________________________________
23    You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God

John 17
________________________________________
14    I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.


They are all beautiful and true verses. This does not make the case for Sola Scriptura.
All scripture is divinely inspired and useful. However, every teaching that was ever taught is not contained in scripture.

When Catholics use the word Oral Tradition they are not talking about Customs and things that can change over time. They are talking about "deposits of faith

[normfromga]

Lastly, what is the Pillar and foundation of truth? Is it the Church or the Bible.  Let's see what the Bible has to say in 1 Timothy Ch 3

14  I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 
15  if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 

An interesting proof-text.

Yes, a church must be hold up and support the Truth if it is to be truly" of the living God," but that does not mean that it is the source of truth; if it were so, Paul would have just told Timothy to hang out at the local assembly and heed and believe everyone there.

Instead, from the beginning of the letter, he warns that many there have already strayed from the truth, and speak myths and speculations without any authority at all.

Thus, as he reminds Timothy here, he is to take what has been written to him, and use it not only to guard against being misled, but to rebuke those who would  mislead.

[winsome]

An interesting proof-text.

Yes, a church must be hold up and support the Truth if it is to be truly" of the living God," but that does not mean that it is the source of truth; if it were so, Paul would have just told Timothy to hang out at the local assembly and heed and believe everyone there.

Instead, from the beginning of the letter, he warns that many there have already strayed from the truth, and speak myths and speculations without any authority at all.

Thus, as he reminds Timothy here, he is to take what has been written to him, and use it not only to guard against being misled, but to rebuke those who would  mislead.

If Timothy were only to teach what Paul has written him he would not have much to teach at all. But Paul tells Timothy to hold to the oral teaching that he has had from Paul and to pass it on in his turn:

Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 1:13) Paul has given Timothy sound teaching.

"Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us.

[Tantor]

You do realize that the term bishop was a direct inclusion in he bible from the Anglican/Catholic church.. right?

[EDWARDJL]

My reply was not proof-text, it was in context. Paul is stating that the church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth.  The Bible was given and cannonized from the church, the church was not born from the Bible.

I think it is ironic that Protestants base their entire existence on the Bible and accuse Catholics of supressing the Bible. It is the Catholic Church who gave you the King James Bible.  It is also the Catholic church who cannonized the four gospels under guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There were over 100 gospels that could have been cannonized.  You base your entire faith on the four that were cannonized.  It was the Catholic church who cannonized those four.  You say, you can't trust the Catholic church. However, if you  believe in sola scriptura, you are entrusting your entire faith on a "tradition" that was brought to you by the Catholic church.  Then you have the nerve to accuse the Catholic church of supressing the Bible and having a disdain for it..  I think you need to be a little ignorant and/or schizophrenic to be a sola scriptura protestant