ECT JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

[Cruciform]

You make it sound bad but you haven't proven where we teach or practice anything wrong.

Anything believed and taught by your recently-invented, man-made sect which fails to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church is---by definition---heterodox.

I don't believe this is possible attending a group that teaches false doctrines.

You don't believe that a member of any one of your fellow Protestant sects can be saved? :think:

Again, you need to show me error because when I see the church that Jesus and the apostles built it looks like the one I attend, not you.

Yes, you "see" exactly what you've been theologically conditioned by your preferred sect to "see."

For example, the name on our building is "Church of Christ" because we are a church of Christ, yours has a man's name on it.

Unfortunately for your assumption, this is entirely irrelevant. For example, merely because a "church" calls itself "The Way" (Ac. 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), should we conclude that it is therefore the one historic Church founded by Christ? I hope not, since The Way is in fact a pseudo-Christian cult formed by a man in 1942, and denies several of the central and defining doctrines of the Christian faith. In addition, as has already been observed, your own recently-invented, man-made sect was itself founded by mere men during the early nineteenth century. Call it what you will, your chosen sect was still founded by mere men less than two centuries ago.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[turbosixx]

Anything believed and taught by your recently-invented, man-made sect which fails to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church is---by definition---heterodox.

You’ve done a lot of talking but you haven’t pointed out anything that proves we are not the church that Jesus died for.

You don't believe that a member of any one of your fellow Protestant sects can be saved? :think:

Do I sound like other “protestants”?

Yes, you "see" exactly what you've been theologically conditioned by your preferred sect to "see."

And you don’t?? The difference between us is I only see what God’s word tells me.

Unfortunately for your assumption, this is entirely irrelevant. For example, merely because a "church" calls itself "The Way" (Ac. 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), should we conclude that it is therefore the one historic Church founded by Christ

True, but can the true church Jesus died for not be named after him or have a name other than his?

 

[turbosixx]

Anything believed and taught by your recently-invented, man-made sect which fails to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church is---by definition---heterodox.


You don't believe that a member of any one of your fellow Protestant sects can be saved? :think:


Yes, you "see" exactly what you've been theologically conditioned by your preferred sect to "see."


Unfortunately for your assumption, this is entirely irrelevant. For example, merely because a "church" calls itself "The Way" (Ac. 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), should we conclude that it is therefore the one historic Church founded by Christ? I hope not, since The Way is in fact a pseudo-Christian cult formed by a man in 1942, and denies several of the central and defining doctrines of the Christian faith. In addition, as has already been observed, your own recently-invented, man-made sect was itself founded by mere men during the early nineteenth century. Call it what you will, your chosen sect was still founded by mere men less than two centuries ago.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

What is the last book in your bible?

 

[Cruciform]

You’ve done a lot of talking but you haven’t pointed out anything that proves we are not the church that Jesus died for.

The issue is whether or not your chosen non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). I have shown that it simply cannot be, since your sect didn't even exist until the nineteenth century when it was invented by mere men.

Do I sound like other “protestants”?

Nothing about your website's Statement of Beliefs differs from that of any other Protestant group.

And you don’t?? The difference between us is I only see what God’s word tells me.

Rather, you see what your chosen man-made sect has told you regarding the supposed meaning of Scripture. Big difference there.

True, but can the true church Jesus died for not be named after him or have a name other than his?

The various individual parishes (local churches) may identify themselves with certain past Saints, but all of them are ultimately part of Christ's one historic "Catholic Church," which is the name commonly attached to Christ's one historic Church since the end of the 1st century.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What is the last book in your bible?

Revelation.

 

[turbosixx]

it simply cannot be, since your sect didn't even exist until the nineteenth century when it was invented by mere men.

Who controls who is added and removed from the church? What are the steps to be added?

Nothing about your website's Statement of Beliefs differs from that of any other Protestant group.

If I understand correctly, the protestant movement was sparked by the RCC selling indulgences. When Luther, who knew the bible, saw that the RCC was not being honest with the truth and using their power to extort money he protested. He also saw the church requiring people to earn and maintain their place in the church by works. That’s why he said ‘faith alone”. I believe he swung too far away from works. As far as I know all protestants believe “faith alone”, we do not. We also believe baptism is essential in the conversion process, I don’t know of any “protestant” groups that believe so. We are from the restoration movement.

The website was to help you prove error, which you haven’t.

Rather, you see what your chosen man-made sect has told you regarding the supposed meaning of Scripture. Big difference there.

The bible isn’t hard to understand. It even tells us when you read you can understand. It was written on a level that the common man can understand.

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Why do you think this verse is in the bible? It clearly points out that they didn't blindly believe what Paul told them but compared what he told them to the scriptures to see if they was true. That’s what we are to do, compare what we are taught to scripture. The reason you are told what to believe is because the RCC doesn’t pass this test.

 

[turbosixx]

Revelation.

If the revelation given the apostles built “Christ’s one historic church” and the church continued to receive “authoritative teachings” through the successors, why does your bible end at Revelation? Shouldn’t it continue? What’s different?

 

[Cruciform]

Who controls who is added and removed from the church? What are the steps to be added?

The issue is not who might be "added" to the Church, but what IS "the Church" to begin with? Which professed Christian group is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself? There can only be one, after all (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15).

If I understand correctly, the protestant movement was sparked by the RCC selling indulgences. When Luther, who knew the bible, saw that the RCC was not being honest with the truth and using their power to extort money he protested. He also saw the church requiring people to earn and maintain their place in the church by works. That’s why he said ‘faith alone”. I believe he swung too far away from works. As far as I know all protestants believe “faith alone”, we do not. We also believe baptism is essential in the conversion process, I don’t know of any “protestant” groups that believe so. We are from the restoration movement.

Most Protestant sects hold to a form of Restoration Theology in which their particular group is thought to be some sort of restoration of "the true church" of the 1st century. Pseudo-Christian sects like Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses also promote a type of Restorationism.

The website was to help you prove error, which you haven’t.

You've already been answered on this point.

The bible isn’t hard to understand.

[1] The New Testament itself contradicts your claim (2 Pet. 3:16).

[2] The thousands of competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today---including yours---with more being invented every week, directly refute your claim.​

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

You may want to make a careful and thorough study of THIS source before assuming too much.

 

[Cruciform]

If the revelation given the apostles built “Christ’s one historic church” and the church continued to receive “authoritative teachings” through the successors, why does your bible end at Revelation? Shouldn’t it continue? What’s different?

The biblical canon ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. So there has been no further Scripture after the close of the 1st century. However, the Holy Spirit does continue to more deeply and completely expound and explain Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition) through the teaching of Christ's one historic Church throughout Christian history. [SOURCE]

 

[turbosixx]

Holy Spirit does continue[/B] to more deeply and completely expound and explain Divine Revelation (Scripture and Tradition)

Isn't the canon revelation from the Holy Spirit? How is this "continued revelation" not scripture if it comes from the Holy Spirit just as the canon did? If you believe it to be scripture, then why is it not in your bible?

 

[Cruciform]

Isn't the canon revelation from the Holy Spirit? How is this "continued revelation" not scripture if it comes from the Holy Spirit just as the canon did? If you believe it to be scripture, then why is it not in your bible?

The difference between Scripture and Tradition is explained in the cited source provided in my previous post.

 

[Nihilo]

Isn't the canon revelation from the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

How is this "continued revelation" not scripture if it comes from the Holy Spirit just as the canon did?

Because the Church has always limited Scripture to the Old Testament plus writings from the Apostles themselves or from qualified and approved contemporaries of the Apostles (qualified and approved by the Apostles) themselves. For the latter, consider Luke, Acts, Mark, and James. These writers were bishops of the Church, consecrated directly by the laying on of hands by Apostles.

If you believe it to be scripture, then why is it not in your bible?

I believe that the Lord's promise in John 14:26, made to His Apostles-to-be, extends to those as a group who succeed the Apostles, the bishops of the Church, or the Magisterium. And the bishops are those who decided to limit Sacred Scripture to the writings I indicated above.

 

[turbosixx]

[1] The New Testament itself contradicts your claim (2 Pet. 3:16).​

This is a good example of scripture being distorted. A verse that says “SOME things” are hard to understand is proof God’s word cannot be understood?? This verse does not say we cannot understand God’s word. It does tell us scripture will be distorted and the type of people who will distort it, those who are untaught and those who are unstable.

Let’s look at God’s word and see if it says we can understand it and how we can understand it.
Eph. 3:4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,
How can we understand? By reading.

Who were the letters written to, the church leaders who would do the “interpreting”? NO, it’s written to the church members.
Col. 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
And they were to read the letter sent to Laodicea
4:16 When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.

They weren’t even written to the elders, just the members.
1 Pt. 5:1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

What’s awesome is we can read the same words the first Christians heard that added them to the church when they believed the words they heard.
Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
Why can’t we read the same words they heard and believe as they did and be added to the church as they were??
Who did the interpretation for these people?

The problem is people think the word needs interpreting, it doesn’t. It just needs to be read and studied with an honest heart letting the word instruct us.​

 

[turbosixx]

but what IS "the Church" to begin with?

That’s the point I was trying to make, what is the church. The church is nothing more than people.

1 Cor. 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Cor. 12:27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
Rom. 16:5 also greet the church that is in their house.
Acts 20:28…..the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Who adds the people? What do they need to do to be added?

Most Protestant sects hold to a form of Restoration Theology in which their particular group is thought to be some sort of restoration of "the true church" of the 1st century. Pseudo-Christian sects like Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses also promote a type of Restorationism.

True but they hold to what the split was about, “faith alone”, we do not. As for the Mormons and JW, they have writings other than the canon, we do not. I’m not sure about the Mormons but I know the JW are told they can’t understand the bible without the Society to interpret it for them.

You've already been answered on this point.

If you’ve PROVEN error, you’ll have to refresh my memory. All I recall seeing are claims with no proof.

[2] The thousands of competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today---including yours---with more being invented every week, directly refute your claim.[/INDENT]

The bible tells us why there are so many.
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

The Catholics promote division. They rightly go by the name of Catholic instead of Christian because they are products of the “church” and not Christ’s word which produces Christians.
Acts 26:28 Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
Phil. 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

 

[turbosixx]

Because the Church has always limited Scripture to the Old Testament plus writings from the Apostles themselves or from qualified and approved contemporaries of the Apostles (qualified and approved by the Apostles) themselves. For the latter, consider Luke, Acts, Mark, and James. These writers were bishops of the Church, consecrated directly by the laying on of hands by Apostles.

That’s the way I understand it, these books were written by inspired men.

I believe that the Lord's promise in John 14:26, made to His Apostles-to-be, extends to those as a group who succeed the Apostles, the bishops of the Church, or the Magisterium. And the bishops are those who decided to limit Sacred Scripture to the writings I indicated above.

I agree this was to the apostles but I fail to see how it extends to any supposed successors. If you could explain how you see successors, I would be glad to listen.

As my question implies, if there were successors that received from the Holy Spirit then the writings should be continually added to the bible and be considered inspired. From my perspective, the inspired writings ended with Revelation and that’s the reason God’s word (bible) ends there. Everything needed to hear the gospel, believe the gospel, to become a Christian and how to live as a Christian is in the canon. What is it lacking?

 

[Cruciform]

This verse does not say we cannot understand God’s word. It does tell us scripture will be distorted and the type of people who will distort it, those who are untaught and those who are unstable.

I agree, as far as it goes. Peter's main point is that various things in the Scriptures are hard to understand (interpret), and that the "ignorant" (those "uninstructed" in apostolic doctrine) distort such difficult-to-interpret aspects of the Scriptures to their own destruction by misinterpreting and misapplying them.

Now, a question: Who possesses the binding doctrinal authority to determine which particular aspects of the Bible are in fact "hard to understand," and which are supposedly "easy" to interpret correctly? Everyone has his own notion of this, does he not? Do individual lay believers like you and I possess such binding authority? Hardly. The fact is that the only way to know (rather than merely hope or assume) that one's understanding of Scripture is infallibly correct is by comparing one's personal interpretations with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church. It has been this way from the very beginning of the Church (Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). Christian truth is something that we RECEIVE from Christ's one historic Church, it is not something that lay believers make up for themselves.

Who were the letters written to, the church leaders who would do the “interpreting”? NO, it’s written to the church members.

...and which were read and explained to the faithful by the apostles/bishops and priests of the Church. Note that the vast majority of lay Christians were illiterate, and couldn't have read a Bible even if they'd had one (they didn't), and that the Church functioned and flourished for decades without "the Bible" as we have it today; rather, the laity followed the preaching and teaching of the apostles/bishops wherein God's word was heard, not read.

The problem is people think the word needs interpreting, it doesn’t.

To "interpret" means "to draw out the meaning" of a document. Not to interpret means that you haven't drawn the meaning out of a document. So when you claim that "the word needs no interpretation," you're actually asserting that there is no need to draw the meaning out of what you read---that you don't need to understand what you're reading! Of course, that's patented nonsense. The simple fact is that we interpret every single thing we read, unless we neglect to actually comprehend anything it says. So your claim here is inherently self-defeating, and so must be rejected by any thinking Christian.

It just needs to be read and studied with an honest heart letting the word instruct us.

Which is exactly what every member of the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects have been doing for five centuries now. Clue: It hasn't worked, nor can it. Ever. Sola scriptura and private interpretation have been a dismal failure for Christendom, a fact which is entirely self-evident and wholly inescapable.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

That’s the point I was trying to make, what is the church. The church is nothing more than people.

Every theological truth-claim ultimately comes back to the issue of ecclesiology, and must answer the central question: "What is 'the Church'?" Your answer is that "The church is nothing more than people." Catholic teaching holds that the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself certainly is "the people of God"---but it is also far more than merely that. For example, see this and this for a beginner's primer on the Catholic doctrine of the Church (ecclesiology).

Remember: The ecclesiology that you have been taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect carries no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever, unless your chosen man-made sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and which therefore possesses the God-endowed teaching authority extended by Christ to the leadership (Magisterum) of his one historic Church (Mt. 16:18-19/Is. 22:22; Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 15:2; 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6). And, since your recently-invented, man-made sect simply cannot be that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D., neither can your favored sect's ecclesiology be anything more than a mere human opinion with no divine sanction or authority---at least insofar as it fails to comport with the formal teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[turbosixx]

Now, a question: Who possesses the binding doctrinal authority

We all do, it’s the bible. What we read is from the apostles by the authority of Christ.
1 Thess. 4:1 Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

God has spoken to us in these last days through Jesus.
Heb. 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son,

The bible is God’s word which will judge us in the last days.
Jn. 12:48 He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.



I see the root of our disagreement is this “Magisterum”.

This is a glimpse of what the ‘magi’ look like from my perspective.
Jesus told us how we are to remember his death. When the Corinthians were making a mess of it, Paul gave instructions 1 Cor. 11:23-29, from Jesus, on how it’s to be done. We are also told how we partake in Christ’s resurrection, Rom.6. When I see how Easter is celebrated, the first thing that comes to mind is I don’t see instructions or traditions from the apostles to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection and the second thing is if it started with good intentions and traditions it has become perverted with a bunny and eggs.

Doing a little research http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/story.php?id=67999 says.
”However, there is no direct evidence of a pagan correlation. The first intimation of a connection arose from Jacob Grimm, and although he was a folklorist, he had no hard evidence other than his own speculation.

Conversely, there is considerable documentation that the rabbit was once associated with virginity, the Virgin Mary, and with the season itself, in a Christian context.

As a result, we must conclude, the Easter Bunny is a distinctly Christian symbol, and does not have pagan origins as occasionally claimed by those who despise the popular children's myth.
This verse comes to mind.
2 Tim. 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

So do you see the easter bunny and eggs from the Holy Spirit or men?

 

[turbosixx]

your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect carries no binding doctrinal authority whatsoever

If you could point out error that would help me to see that we are lacking "magi".

We do have elders.
Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.

 

[Cruciform]

We all do, it’s the bible.

And whose interpretations of the Bible carry the infallible binding authority of Jesus Christ himself? Yours? Your pastor's? Your recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? Who possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to interpret the Bible in such a manner that those interpretations are binding upon all believers everywhere? :think:

I see the root of our disagreement is this “Magisterum”.

Yes, since the Catholic Church is able to trace her Magisterium (apostles/bishops) directly back in history to Christ and the apostles themselves. Protestant (non-Catholic) denominations and sects, by contrast, have no such Magisterium, and so possess no objective means whereby one might know with certainty the authentic meaning of God's written word.

So do you see the easter bunny and eggs from the Holy Spirit or men?

I'm not sure why you're asking about this, since the Catholic Easter celebration certainly does not contain these elements of the popular culture.