I AGREE THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY STILL REMAINS THE SAME WHEREAS PROTESTANTISM IS FOREVER CHANGING AND HAVE LIKE YOU SAY CONFLICTING TEACHINGS,WHICH ALOT OF PROTESTANT TEACHINGS DONT TEACH THE SCRIPTURE CORRECTLY, I KNOW BECAUSE I USED TO BE A PROTESTANT. WHICH THE NAME CATHOLIC IN GREEK MEANS "UNIVERSAL OR WHOLE" AND IT IS TRUE. NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO ON THE WORLD, THE CATHOLIC MASS AND RELIGION IS THE SAME, JUST IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE,THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN FAITH,
the Catholic Church is the true Church and the Bible is actually a Catholic book, the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church established by Christ and Peter was told by God to build a church on the rock and that Church was the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.
This man think he knows everything; he doesn't know shit, Catholic made the bble, and they know every meaning of it. If Catholic didn't understand the bble, they wouldn't do what they're doing and believe, but because they wrote the bble and they understand every meaning of the bble that's what they're doing. everything we do is in the bble, but u pple don't understand it a bit so go and search 4 the truth...
@999Thip What does mentioning Jesus have to do with anything? He is already the center of the Catholic faith. We use Scripture, which is the word of God, to explain why do certain things. And don't you know that Jesus founded the Catholic Church over 2000 years ago. We believe our interpretation of the Bible to be correct because Jesus said so in Matt. 10:20, 16:18, and 18:17-18. Also Acts 9:2 the Church is identified as the 'Way'
@999Thip Well, Jesus did establish the Catholic Church. Through Apostolic succession after St. John the Apostle died, the church was run by bishops who were given authority by the original Apostles. Did Jesus name the Catholic Church, no. Catholic comes from the Greek word, kath'houlou, which means 'universal' or 'whole', and it first appeared in a letter by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John around 110 A.D
@gothicavictoria1341 thank you, i did not think that jesus ever said anything about being catholic., if one reads the bible, they themselves will find out the truth-
we are to come to jesus ,and ask him to come into our lives,and accept him as our savior..
its through jesus we are saved, not a name of a religion.
jesus is more then the center,friend. he is the way,the truth,and the life.
@325nicaea t's not literal but analogical or even methaphorical interpretation that the RCC has used since Jerome. which means that the RCC has read more into the scriptures that is actually there.
this includes the notion of Purgatory which has no foundation in the scriptures, old and new or apocryphical.
1:24...no, they would need a figurative interpretation. Literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words."
@terryooooooo Because each denomination has a different interpretation of bible and the stories contained within it and people interpret it differently. This, although, doesn't altogether explain why their are hundreds of protestant denominations because each denomination derives it's ideas from it's founders (Calvin, Luther, Locke...) who "attempted' to, in a lot of cases, link human existence at their time in history to the bible.
@terryooooooo Because each denomination has a different interpretation of bible and the stories contained within it and people interprit it differently. This, although, doesn't altogether explain why their are hundreds of protestant denominations because each denomination derives it's ideas from it's founders (Calvin, Luther, Locke...) who "attempted' to, in a lot of cases, link human existence at their time in history to the bible.
Literalism is a problem in itself; we can end up with a God saying it is okay to kill innocents and children, and this can lead to people justifying 9/11....or can people not see that ?
A bit like Judas Iscariot with his two deaths :) The Deutero-canonical books of the OT have their difficulties, but so do the books that Catholics & Protestants agree are inspired. There is a difference in "atmosphere" beween the deuteros & the rest of the OT, but so is there between the 39 books of the OT Protestyants acknowledge, & the NT.
BTW, Catholic Bibles don't include 3 & 4 Esdras, nor the Prayer of Manasseh, as inspired & canonical.
the crossed keys which the RCC has, originated from a pagan idol... the idol also had keys.. the idol was a gate keeper.... the unusual dombed hat also has pagan origins...
how can catholics belong to such a corrupt church...
Those are similarities to Christian things - but similarity is not proof of origin. Jesus is not the only "King of Kings" - the kings of Persia had the same title 500 years before Christ. Besides, how does being of pagan origin make something bad ? Greek was used to write the NT - having been used to praise very different gods. The argument "X is pagan, therefore, has no place in the Church" would destroy the NT. It would destroy preaching to non-Christians.
Although the Gospels were written from different perspectives, they are certainly not contradictory. Catholics accept and believe the Gospels, and the entire Bible for that matter, to be the Word of God, and God does not contradict Himself.
Catholic Belief:The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time. The special creation by God of man. The formation of woman from man. The unity of the human race. The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice. The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience. The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent. The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence. The promise of a future redeemer.
BTW... Comparing the pope to Godly men of the Old Testament is laughable to say the least. The men of old were Bible believers. the pope is not. He believes in evolution, homosexuality, gambling, murder, lies, drunkeness, wars, torture, etc etc etc.
Which creation account do you want us to take "literialty"? The one where God creates light, the earth, the sun and moon, plants, animals and finally human beings; or the one where God creates the earth, but doesn't plant anything, then creates man, then creates all the animals to see which one would be a suitable partner for him, then creates woman and puts them in a garden he plants?
@badpanda84 Read John chapter 6... When Jesus was questionned, he had every occasion in the world to explain the meaning of his words. He could have said something like "it's all in a metaphorical sense"... But what did he do instead? He REAFFIRMS the Truth... "My flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL drink".
Notice also the word that he uses. When Jesus asked that we EAT his flesh, the greek word there is not the typical "phagein" (eat) but "trogein" (gnaw)
the word of god was written in aramaic and then translated into greek, and latin, and in our version english. so even quoting scripture would mean you wouldn't be preaching the exact words of god written down years after it happened. Catholics aren't literal beacuse we realize its better to enact scripture then just quote it.
I would be hesitant to say that the Word of God was written in Aramaic, and then translated to Greek, and so forth, for different parts of the Bible were actually originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Although Aramaic was certainly the language Jesus spoke, it would be inaccurate to say that the Word of God was written in Aramaic, especially because most of the New Testament was actually written in Greek (while it contains Aramaic expressions).
Why labour so much on literal and unliteral? The Bible interprets itself! What does cats and dogs has to do with understanding scriptures.
Things are just messed up when churches tries to fit bible passages into their teachings instead of believing the bible as it is! The Word of God is there to correct us not men to correct the word of God.
I don't think I missed it. You just answered it - only a "pretext" - and this is the problem. Labouring so much on Bible texts to discover the meanings "between lines" instead of taking them just as the Holy Spiriti inspired them. That is why there so many confusing statements given by "Bible Teachers"/Church" that the normal person is left in cobweb of spiritual confusion which does not help him.
Such as some churches teach and believe Baptism is necessary for salvation. Some churches teach and believe Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Both cannot be right, so which one is, and how do you know?
Would you please provide the book, chapter, and verses of the instances you speak of please?
As far as the deuterocanonicals contradicting the rest of Scripture, I am not aware of any instances of that happening. As far as those texts making "fabulous statements", well most of Scripture does: Moses parts the Red Sea, Jesus changes water into wine, people resurrecting from the dead, etc.
The Greek word in Hebrew 12:1 is "nephos", listed in Strong's #3509 meaning: "a cloudy, shapeless mass covering the heavens."
Concerning Rev, you miss that in 8:9-17 the people who are praying are before God's throne which is in heaven, surrounded by angels and the 4 living creatures, also things in heaven. So they are God's people but not on earth, esp since the angel holding the incense threw the embers "down to earth" (Rev 8:4-5). Plus Rev 6:9-10 proves dead are petitioning God.
You don't add anything from what? Another human's fallible interpretation? Do you see the fallacy there? By what authority? The Bible's authority? Where did the Bible come from? How was it established as authoritative? Better yet, the trinity?
Everything that you hold as a "conservative Christian" is in fact your personal interpretation which of course to you is more factual than the earliest Christians who are far more in line with modern Catholic teaching than any protestant denomination.
The Pope IS in fact sinful. There is no official designation of the Pope as beyond sin. There is a gulf between what the Catholic Church actually teaches and what others mistakenly believe the Church teaches. Peter was sinful, it was only during the times when he spoke as an authority over the Church of Jesus Christ that he spoke infalliably.
This was common knowledge during the earliest periods of Christianity. The writings of the early Christian followers gave authority to the Pope.
1. If I with my knowledge interpret the Bible yet cannot deny that I am limited by my own intellect and creative abilities, can I claim to have the truth?
2. Are you falliable or infalliable?
3. How can you be certain of the truth?
4. Is it possible that you could be wrong?
5. Does everyone else have the same right to claim correct understanding and authority of scripture?
6. Does God accept a multiplicity to truth on these subjects?
What I find incredibly interesting is that so many protestants rely on their own intellectual and creative limitations yet deny the same authority of the early Christians who actually lived amongst the apostles or their students.
To think that we today understand Christianity and authority more so than the earliest Christian writings which of course take apostolic authority for granted, is absurd to say the least.
So....You are calling me a Fly........Right???......(Well, I am Catholic and I do take everything literaly.......Sorry, Please pardon my pun, I couldn't help myself.)
How come there are 33,750 Protestant and Lutheran branches coming off the One Catholic Church??? It is because everyone interprets the Bible differently..They disagree with each other in understanding and explaining the Word of God..They often contradict each other.They disagree what Jesus Christ ment about many of the same things.STOP NOW AND THINK.This is why Jesus instituded ONE Church."Upon this Rock(Peter)I will build my Church...and i will be with you until the end of time."(Jn17:11-21)
Martin Luther discovered faults within the Catholic Churches doctrine and teachings. As it is he almost lost his life doing this. Read the Book of Concord and it will make everything clear. As it is, most of these branches make up their own man made teachings just like the Catholic Church. My denomination is very conservative, even more conservative than the Catholic Church is. We get everything from the Bible and don't add to it or teach false doctrine like most of these 33,750 branches do.
The Church is made up of humans and we do are best to really mess things up some times.Pope John Paul2 came right out and appologized for all past church failings. I am going one step forward here, which Protestant denomination is going to come forward and appologize for there past failings??
Oh gee, there's a lot of them, but we aren't in communion with them because of their sinful doctrines. Here it goes: ElCA, The Lutheran Churches of Finland, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. The Anglican Churches that support homosexuality, etc..
These churches openly support women clergy and homosexuality. The CLC, WELS, ELS, and a couple of other Lutheran churches who interpret the scripture and adhere to it. I respect the Catholics for being conservative when it comes to these issues.
The only thing more numerous than the faults of the Catholic Church is the faults of Martin Luther. Luther would have been fine if he only attacked the faults of the Catholic Church at the time, but instead he attacked the doctrine as well which was an error on his part.
Rightttt....Martin Luther discovered faults 1500 years after the Church was founded. The same Church that Jesus Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. Martin Luther was SO much SMARTER than all the Catholic saints and early Church Fathers!
The Bible itself NO WHERE claims to be the sole rule of faith. In fact, it says the opposite. Hold fast to the traditions you were taught either by oral statement or letter of ours.
The Catholic interpretation of the Bible goes back 2000 years....This is what Jesus wanted..The Apostlic ministry appointed by Jesus Christ and handed down by succession..Jesus Christ himself gave special and highest athority among the apostles to Peter.(jn 21:15-17)Peter, the first Pope,was to feed the whole flock,lambs and sheep. Peter was given the task of strengthening the apostles and all the faithful in ONE faith so that they taught only ONE TRUTH.(Lk22:33)
There is no indication in John 21 that Peter was made a Pope; The papacy itself is the antichrist. Also, where in the Bible does it say you can pray to Mary or the Saints?
In the early Christian community of Jerusalem, amoung the twelve,Peter predominates.Acts presents him as their spokesman, Galatians 1:11-19 gives testimony to Peter's importance. St.Paul gives evidence of his special recognition of Peter's authority.After acknowledging that there"were apostles before me."he said he retired to Arabia,and again returned to Damascus "Three years after that I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas (Peter)."
Peter was a leader, yes, but nothing more than that. This gives no indication of a pope. That is a concept created by the Catholic Church. No one in the Bible says or gives indication that Peter was ever a Pope. Christ refused to recognize any pope among his disciples (Matthew 23:8-12). Peter was considered only as one of the pillars of the Church. See Galatians 2:8-10. He was like James and John, one of the pillars of the Church, not its head.
Reputable historians, even if they dont have the Catholic or Chirstian faith, agree that among Christian Churchs the Catholic Church, with the pope at Rome a visible head, it the first Christian Church. St. Peter was the First Pope. Linus the second.Then Cletus,Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, ect. St. Peter lived in Antioch, then he went to Rome where he was martyred about the year 67 AD.. Peter failed his promise and God STILL APPOINTED HIM..HOW LOVING AND TRUSTING IS THAT!!! GOD BLESS
The early Christian church was not Catholic! It slowly evolved into Catholicism. Most historians dispute over who the first five "popes" were anyways. These were most likely the leaders of the church, but not popes. Popes do not have any special powers and people should not regard the Pope as holy; Only God is holy and declaring the Pope holy is robbing God of the glory that he deserves. God Bless you too.
The task of the Pope is to keep the Church united in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." To have unity in the faith we are to look to the faith of Peter and his successors. The promise of the Holy Spririt to keep the Church in the truth of holiness given to the Apostles especially applies to the head of the college of the Apostles, the Pope of whom Peter was the first chosen by Jesus Christ Himself.
Like I said, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus appointed Peter "The Pope". The problem, is that people think that the Pope is holy and other stuff like that. That is wrong as only God is holy. The pope is sinful like everyone else.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that we can acheive perfection. That's another problem. Good works do not get you to heaven; Only believing in Jesus as your savior can. That is not a misconception.
It is also Wrong to say that we just have to believe. We must act on our faith through the responce of our own Free Will.We must work to fulfill all the obligations imposed on us by God for salvation. Salvation comes from the infinate merits of Jesus Christ,True. But merely believing in Jesus Christ is dead faith unless we activate our faith in good deeds, including the sacramental life together with the love of God and neighbor.
You couldn't of said it better. Good works show our faith. We do good works for the glory of God, not because of some goal we have to reach. But works should not turned into the false belief that they get us to heaven alone.
Neither should faith be turned into a false belief that it gets us into heaven alone.
Good works are not a sign of faith. Good works are a response to grace. That is why faith alone is false doctrine. Faith, like works, is also a response to grace. Bad works are a rejection of God just like lack of faith is a rejection of God.
Good works are a response to God's grace. God's grace is what saves us. Thus receiving God's grace through good works is efficacious to our salvation.
in 24 and 26, "faith" is not used in the sense of real, genuine faith. Rather, it is demonic (v 19) useless, (v 20) and dead. (v 26). It is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths without trust in Christ as Savior. James is also not saying that a person is saved by works and not by genuine faith. Rather, he is saying that a man is justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Genuine faith will produce good deeds. but only faith that Christ died for all your sins saves.
No Biblical evidence? Have you not read the 16th chapter of Matthew? Or John 21:15-19? Or noticed the overwhelming occuring of Peter's name being mentioned over others? You must be confusing the difference in language terminology over the similarity in meaning of the terms.
We can probably debate this till we are blue in the face and not sway one another...I will throw this out..I think we both can agree that God wants all his children to return home to him...His greatest gift to us on this earth IS the gift of Free Will...Maybe we can not all meet in the same Church Pew..But all us Christians can meet in the shadow of the Cross....God Bless you Hailzeon57
As long as we believe that Christ died for us, we are all Christians. It saddens me that so many churches are liberal these days. I respect the Catholic church for staying rather conservative. God Bless you too.
I cannot imagine any credible historians questioning who the first five popes were. From Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, the Catholic letters, Revelation, the Didache, and the first 300 years of Christian writings, the early Church was blatantly Catholic.
St. Matthew's Gospel portrays Peter as the unique leader of the whole Church, the one whom the church is founded and to whom Jesus intrusts the power of the Keys of the Kingdom. Peter is also presented as a Christian Martyr(jn 21:18-19) and the confessor of the true Christian faith against false teaching, interpreting Scriptural prophecies (1 pet 1:20-21)
Why do that instead of praying to God directly. May and the saints can't hear you. Only God answers prayer. 1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them.
Then do not dare to ever pray for anyone. If anyone asks you to pray for them, call them pagan for not going directly to God. Oh wait, the Scriptures constantly talk about people praying for each other. Paul even talks about praying for people. Guess what, Paul still prays for people and so do all the other saints still pray for people. Who do you think the "cloud of witnesses" are in Hebrews 12:1? The same people who are praying at the throne of God (Rev 8:3-4).
Unfortunately, this entire comment is not accurate. It was not the translation of Scripture into vernaculars that the Church protested, but the butchering of the Sacred Text by poor translations and eisegetic agenda injections into the text of the translations, something that the "Reformers" are notorious for.
Well actually Martin Luther and many others extracted the early church fathers, papal encyclicals, bull writings, and then finally getting to the Bible 7 books from the old and at least 4 from the new, added alone after faith in Romans 3:28, and taught a philosophy that hardly any to no christians actually believed or taught and your complaining about Catholic perversion of the scripture?
Let me get this striaght...you as a protestant in 2008 have just as much insight and authority to interpret teachings and writings as those whom walked with the apostles? Catholics are the ONLY christians to take the entirety of the Bible and other christian writings into account when interpreting. Peter when speaking as sinful man=fallible. Peter when speaking faith/morals=infallible. That is so clearly elucidated in the Bible.
Ok, so what was the "forged document" that Catholic Church "forged" to establish Marian dogma, or the Mass, or intercessory prayers? I bet you could not list one. There is archeological evidence and biblical evidence of prayer to saints. There is Biblical evidence of the Mass and we 1st and 2nd century AD writing confirming the existence of the Mass and Christian belief in such. You are either ignorant of history or in denial of it.
So Studier you say that Peter was "proven" to be falliable? Do you even understand the word in reference to Catholic understanding?
the Catholic perspective is to interpret the text(of which was never the only basis for truth, tradition, or teaching)as the original langauge with context taken into account whereas most Protestants use the context in terms of how they want it to fit. I refer to it as customized Christianity which then it is quite easy to understand it's recent growth.
Actually, Roman doctrine is not even to think anything of the Scripture unless it is Roman church doctrine. Rome wants to make Scripture mean what it wants via interpreting it in light of tradition (justification for what they already do). The problem with this is that if you want Rome to be an infallible authority, you must prove it, and that is impossible. How can the church tell God what to believe? No, God must tell the church what to believe.
Exactly, God instructs the Church through the Holy Spirit. Scripture attests that the Church is infallible. The Catholic Church is the infallible authority and I can prove it using Scripture. You will find a link to my myspace page on my youtube profile. Follow that link and find under my blog list "Sola Scriptura, Personal Interpretation, and the Invisible Body of Believers..." There I prove that the Catholic Church is the infallible Body of Christ. It is through the true Church that God teach
Any traditions given by the Apostles that were Divinely meant for the Church for all time have been infallibly recorded in Scripture; such as Baptism, the Lord's Supper, or church government. Any traditions not able to be proven from the exclusive and infallible revelation of God in the Bible must be unsubstantiated; and, hence, speculative and unbinding on the faithful. In fact, after Peter was given the keys, as you claim(I will not debate that here),he was found to be in the wrong = fallible.
Well then, I guess you do not interpret literally when Paul told us to hold to his teachings whether by letter or WORD OF MOUTH. (2 Thes2:15). However, you are mixing several issues by your "rebuttal". This is about Sacred Scripture. You, however, attack Sacred Tradition and seemingly Papal Infallibility (which you obviously do not understand). However, the key is that if Scripture is infallible and so are the other two, then they will not contradict. That is the case in Catholicism.
As for "WORD OF MOUTH" the verse is : "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - 2 (Thess. 2:15 KJV)
First, we must notice what comes before "word" : "which ye have been taught." The Thessalonians had been visited by Paul and "[had] been taught", so Paul is telling them to hold to what they had been taught, whether by letter (1 Thessalonians) or by word (Paul's speech while bodily present). He never even lists them
Exactly! You have what Paul taught be epistle only. Catholics have what Paul taught directly and by epistle handed down to them. Catholics still have the words that Paul taught when he was physically present. Protestants do not have such because they reject it (somewhat... they acknowledge some of it unknowingly or unwittingly).
Paul also did not write the Constitution of the United States. Neither did Paul write the 99 thesis. Therefore the United States and all of protestantism practices things that do not come from the Apostles, so history proves. Your argument makes no sense. In fact, you make no argument at all.
You are assuming that things came from the apostles that you have no proof of, except the word of Rome, which you have no proof of. I never claimed that the 99 thesis came from Paul.
Catholics never claimed that the Donation of Constantine came from Paul! You, sir, are a moron. You talk in circles. Start making sense or I will start deleting your comments.
Rome has derived its authority from forgeries and doctrines derived from men, not from any apostolic trust. That is; that the traditions of Rome are built on documents, men, teachings, and practices that have nothing to do with the known practice of the Apostles. So implying that the mass, incense, prayers to Mary, etc.; were taught by tradition of the Apostles, despite that they conradict their known writings, is absurd.
Actually, if you just take some time out of your day to read Scripture, you will find the Mass, incense, and saintly intercession detailed in the book of Revelation.
But you use traditions foreign to the authors to determine what the authors mean. So Catholic interpretation does NOT take into account what the authors mean in context of the whole Scripture and the original languages. Rather, it interprets by means of what it thinks happened and how it thinks the verse should read according to what the church says it ought to read. Therefore it inserts its own fallible, unproven traditions into the Scriptures without cause. Unbiased interpretation? I think not
I recommend that you read Providentissimus Deus and Dei Verbum so that you can at least have some notion about the topic you attempt to portray knowledge of. What you state, however, holds very true of protestantism which generally views Scripture from a modern mindset. In addition, when it crosses Catholic truth in Scripture is struggles immensely to explain it away so as not to admit to the reality in which they desire to deny.
I will check it out. For example, though, take the bodily assumption & sinless perfection of Mary. Now, if you want to say Mary was the most blessed among women, you would have a partial case, but claiming bodily assumption is too much!
I AGREE THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY STILL REMAINS THE SAME WHEREAS PROTESTANTISM IS FOREVER CHANGING AND HAVE LIKE YOU SAY CONFLICTING TEACHINGS,WHICH ALOT OF PROTESTANT TEACHINGS DONT TEACH THE SCRIPTURE CORRECTLY, I KNOW BECAUSE I USED TO BE A PROTESTANT. WHICH THE NAME CATHOLIC IN GREEK MEANS "UNIVERSAL OR WHOLE" AND IT IS TRUE. NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO ON THE WORLD, THE CATHOLIC MASS AND RELIGION IS THE SAME, JUST IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE,THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONLY UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN FAITH,
jasmineflower05 5 months ago
@terryooooooo exactly !!!!
jasmineflower05 5 months ago
the Catholic Church is the true Church and the Bible is actually a Catholic book, the Catholic Church was the first Christian Church established by Christ and Peter was told by God to build a church on the rock and that Church was the Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.
jasmineflower05 5 months ago
This man think he knows everything; he doesn't know shit, Catholic made the bble, and they know every meaning of it. If Catholic didn't understand the bble, they wouldn't do what they're doing and believe, but because they wrote the bble and they understand every meaning of the bble that's what they're doing. everything we do is in the bble, but u pple don't understand it a bit so go and search 4 the truth...
tonganfoilole69 7 months ago
Feles canesque pluere est omen finis mundi.
impCaesarAvg 7 months ago
i pray that the lost catholics will open their eyes to the truth.
its clear when they try to prove a point and not even mention the very name of jesus
that they are from the evil side.
you cant serve two masters,
its the catholic church or the son of the living god, jesus.
which one will it be, cause it cant be both..
999Thip 8 months ago
@999Thip What does mentioning Jesus have to do with anything? He is already the center of the Catholic faith. We use Scripture, which is the word of God, to explain why do certain things. And don't you know that Jesus founded the Catholic Church over 2000 years ago. We believe our interpretation of the Bible to be correct because Jesus said so in Matt. 10:20, 16:18, and 18:17-18. Also Acts 9:2 the Church is identified as the 'Way'
gothicavictoria1341 7 months ago
@gothicavictoria1341 i want you to tell me what catholic means and at what yr it started.
surly you are not going to tell me jesus named it.
tic toc
999Thip 7 months ago
@999Thip Well, Jesus did establish the Catholic Church. Through Apostolic succession after St. John the Apostle died, the church was run by bishops who were given authority by the original Apostles. Did Jesus name the Catholic Church, no. Catholic comes from the Greek word, kath'houlou, which means 'universal' or 'whole', and it first appeared in a letter by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John around 110 A.D
gothicavictoria1341 7 months ago
@gothicavictoria1341 thank you, i did not think that jesus ever said anything about being catholic., if one reads the bible, they themselves will find out the truth-
we are to come to jesus ,and ask him to come into our lives,and accept him as our savior..
its through jesus we are saved, not a name of a religion.
jesus is more then the center,friend. he is the way,the truth,and the life.
999Thip 7 months ago
Comment removed
jasmineflower05 5 months ago
@325nicaea t's not literal but analogical or even methaphorical interpretation that the RCC has used since Jerome. which means that the RCC has read more into the scriptures that is actually there.
this includes the notion of Purgatory which has no foundation in the scriptures, old and new or apocryphical.
cirosuperiore 9 months ago
this is the worst theology i've ever heard.
cirosuperiore 9 months ago
1:24...no, they would need a figurative interpretation. Literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words."
TheChrisharrison355 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@terryooooooo Because each denomination has a different interpretation of bible and the stories contained within it and people interpret it differently. This, although, doesn't altogether explain why their are hundreds of protestant denominations because each denomination derives it's ideas from it's founders (Calvin, Luther, Locke...) who "attempted' to, in a lot of cases, link human existence at their time in history to the bible.
carrotsRgood4you 1 year ago
@terryooooooo Because each denomination has a different interpretation of bible and the stories contained within it and people interprit it differently. This, although, doesn't altogether explain why their are hundreds of protestant denominations because each denomination derives it's ideas from it's founders (Calvin, Luther, Locke...) who "attempted' to, in a lot of cases, link human existence at their time in history to the bible.
carrotsRgood4you 1 year ago
Who is the person who talk about the scripture ? Who are you ?
johnthien1 1 year ago
Literalism is a problem in itself; we can end up with a God saying it is okay to kill innocents and children, and this can lead to people justifying 9/11....or can people not see that ?
no1hoopsman 1 year ago
@MrsMcCullough86
A bit like Judas Iscariot with his two deaths :) The Deutero-canonical books of the OT have their difficulties, but so do the books that Catholics & Protestants agree are inspired. There is a difference in "atmosphere" beween the deuteros & the rest of the OT, but so is there between the 39 books of the OT Protestyants acknowledge, & the NT.
BTW, Catholic Bibles don't include 3 & 4 Esdras, nor the Prayer of Manasseh, as inspired & canonical.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
one thinks that enigma or rather strange one needs to chech the historical back ground of the pagan beliefs and uses of these keys in question...
makes you look foolish.... not me..
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
the crossed keys which the RCC has, originated from a pagan idol... the idol also had keys.. the idol was a gate keeper.... the unusual dombed hat also has pagan origins...
how can catholics belong to such a corrupt church...
loudmouthspeaker 2 years ago
@loudmouthspeaker YOU SHOULD SHUT YOUR LOUD STUPID MOUTH!
Enigmatik691 2 years ago
@loudmouthspeaker
Those are similarities to Christian things - but similarity is not proof of origin. Jesus is not the only "King of Kings" - the kings of Persia had the same title 500 years before Christ. Besides, how does being of pagan origin make something bad ? Greek was used to write the NT - having been used to praise very different gods. The argument "X is pagan, therefore, has no place in the Church" would destroy the NT. It would destroy preaching to non-Christians.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
That was ridiculous. Idioms are idioms, this has nothing to do with saying whether a Bible verse is literal or symbolic.
Smetch 2 years ago
Yes, MrsMcCullough86, please provide Scriptural references and citations.
tdmavens 2 years ago
Great question.
tdmavens 2 years ago
Although the Gospels were written from different perspectives, they are certainly not contradictory. Catholics accept and believe the Gospels, and the entire Bible for that matter, to be the Word of God, and God does not contradict Himself.
tdmavens 2 years ago
The funny thing is that its a bit of both.
ON the one hand most catholics dont take the creation story in gensis literialty (as far as I am aware most catholics beleive in evoultion)
Yet when Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood they decide to take that literially
badpanda84 2 years ago
Catholic Belief:The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time. The special creation by God of man. The formation of woman from man. The unity of the human race. The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice. The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience. The transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent. The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence. The promise of a future redeemer.
haojiesheng 2 years ago
So do hey still accept evoultion and the big bang.
Do catholics belive God created all the animals at the same time
(ie dinoasaur and mamals coexisted at the same time)
badpanda84 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW... Comparing the pope to Godly men of the Old Testament is laughable to say the least. The men of old were Bible believers. the pope is not. He believes in evolution, homosexuality, gambling, murder, lies, drunkeness, wars, torture, etc etc etc.
frenchyo7 2 years ago
@badpanda84 Are you catholic?
zanica76 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Are you catholic?
zanica76 1 year ago
@badpanda84
Which creation account do you want us to take "literialty"? The one where God creates light, the earth, the sun and moon, plants, animals and finally human beings; or the one where God creates the earth, but doesn't plant anything, then creates man, then creates all the animals to see which one would be a suitable partner for him, then creates woman and puts them in a garden he plants?
mmsiciliana 11 months ago
@badpanda84 Read John chapter 6... When Jesus was questionned, he had every occasion in the world to explain the meaning of his words. He could have said something like "it's all in a metaphorical sense"... But what did he do instead? He REAFFIRMS the Truth... "My flesh is REAL FOOD and my blood is REAL drink".
Notice also the word that he uses. When Jesus asked that we EAT his flesh, the greek word there is not the typical "phagein" (eat) but "trogein" (gnaw)
Gazdo01 6 months ago
the word of god was written in aramaic and then translated into greek, and latin, and in our version english. so even quoting scripture would mean you wouldn't be preaching the exact words of god written down years after it happened. Catholics aren't literal beacuse we realize its better to enact scripture then just quote it.
frozenlolo 2 years ago
I would be hesitant to say that the Word of God was written in Aramaic, and then translated to Greek, and so forth, for different parts of the Bible were actually originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Although Aramaic was certainly the language Jesus spoke, it would be inaccurate to say that the Word of God was written in Aramaic, especially because most of the New Testament was actually written in Greek (while it contains Aramaic expressions).
tdmavens 2 years ago
Why labour so much on literal and unliteral? The Bible interprets itself! What does cats and dogs has to do with understanding scriptures.
Things are just messed up when churches tries to fit bible passages into their teachings instead of believing the bible as it is! The Word of God is there to correct us not men to correct the word of God.
chichi2joe 3 years ago
The lesson of this video is quite simply that a text without a context is only a pretext.
It seems as though you missed the context of this video, as demonstrated by your comment about cats and dogs.
haojiesheng 3 years ago 2
I don't think I missed it. You just answered it - only a "pretext" - and this is the problem. Labouring so much on Bible texts to discover the meanings "between lines" instead of taking them just as the Holy Spiriti inspired them. That is why there so many confusing statements given by "Bible Teachers"/Church" that the normal person is left in cobweb of spiritual confusion which does not help him.
chichi2joe 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haojiesheng "The lesson of this video is quite simply that a text without a context "
Of course how can a book written 2000 years ago be relvant to todays context.
badpanda84 11 months ago
@chichi2joe
The Bible interprets itself? Then why are there so many different interpretations of it?
mmsiciliana 11 months ago
@mmsiciliana SUCH AS
chichi2joe 10 months ago
Such as some churches teach and believe Baptism is necessary for salvation. Some churches teach and believe Baptism is not necessary for salvation. Both cannot be right, so which one is, and how do you know?
mmsiciliana 10 months ago
Would you please provide the book, chapter, and verses of the instances you speak of please?
As far as the deuterocanonicals contradicting the rest of Scripture, I am not aware of any instances of that happening. As far as those texts making "fabulous statements", well most of Scripture does: Moses parts the Red Sea, Jesus changes water into wine, people resurrecting from the dead, etc.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Indeed! And a father both leads and serves His family. Good point!
haojiesheng 3 years ago
The Greek word in Hebrew 12:1 is "nephos", listed in Strong's #3509 meaning: "a cloudy, shapeless mass covering the heavens."
Concerning Rev, you miss that in 8:9-17 the people who are praying are before God's throne which is in heaven, surrounded by angels and the 4 living creatures, also things in heaven. So they are God's people but not on earth, esp since the angel holding the incense threw the embers "down to earth" (Rev 8:4-5). Plus Rev 6:9-10 proves dead are petitioning God.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
You don't add anything from what? Another human's fallible interpretation? Do you see the fallacy there? By what authority? The Bible's authority? Where did the Bible come from? How was it established as authoritative? Better yet, the trinity?
Everything that you hold as a "conservative Christian" is in fact your personal interpretation which of course to you is more factual than the earliest Christians who are far more in line with modern Catholic teaching than any protestant denomination.
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
The Pope IS in fact sinful. There is no official designation of the Pope as beyond sin. There is a gulf between what the Catholic Church actually teaches and what others mistakenly believe the Church teaches. Peter was sinful, it was only during the times when he spoke as an authority over the Church of Jesus Christ that he spoke infalliably.
This was common knowledge during the earliest periods of Christianity. The writings of the early Christian followers gave authority to the Pope.
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
1. If truth of scripture is so entirely clear why are there 30,000 denominations?
2. Imagine Jesus leaving us the last wish go about and...interpret truth as we see fit according to our creative abilities and predisposed bias.
3. Does the Bible claim that we should be one in our faith?
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
1. If I with my knowledge interpret the Bible yet cannot deny that I am limited by my own intellect and creative abilities, can I claim to have the truth?
2. Are you falliable or infalliable?
3. How can you be certain of the truth?
4. Is it possible that you could be wrong?
5. Does everyone else have the same right to claim correct understanding and authority of scripture?
6. Does God accept a multiplicity to truth on these subjects?
7. Does God allow contradictions of truth?
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
What I find incredibly interesting is that so many protestants rely on their own intellectual and creative limitations yet deny the same authority of the early Christians who actually lived amongst the apostles or their students.
To think that we today understand Christianity and authority more so than the earliest Christian writings which of course take apostolic authority for granted, is absurd to say the least.
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
So....You are calling me a Fly........Right???......(Well, I am Catholic and I do take everything literaly.......Sorry, Please pardon my pun, I couldn't help myself.)
csmuskie 3 years ago
How come there are 33,750 Protestant and Lutheran branches coming off the One Catholic Church??? It is because everyone interprets the Bible differently..They disagree with each other in understanding and explaining the Word of God..They often contradict each other.They disagree what Jesus Christ ment about many of the same things.STOP NOW AND THINK.This is why Jesus instituded ONE Church."Upon this Rock(Peter)I will build my Church...and i will be with you until the end of time."(Jn17:11-21)
csmuskie 3 years ago
Martin Luther discovered faults within the Catholic Churches doctrine and teachings. As it is he almost lost his life doing this. Read the Book of Concord and it will make everything clear. As it is, most of these branches make up their own man made teachings just like the Catholic Church. My denomination is very conservative, even more conservative than the Catholic Church is. We get everything from the Bible and don't add to it or teach false doctrine like most of these 33,750 branches do.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
The Church is made up of humans and we do are best to really mess things up some times.Pope John Paul2 came right out and appologized for all past church failings. I am going one step forward here, which Protestant denomination is going to come forward and appologize for there past failings??
csmuskie 3 years ago
Oh gee, there's a lot of them, but we aren't in communion with them because of their sinful doctrines. Here it goes: ElCA, The Lutheran Churches of Finland, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden. The Anglican Churches that support homosexuality, etc..
These churches openly support women clergy and homosexuality. The CLC, WELS, ELS, and a couple of other Lutheran churches who interpret the scripture and adhere to it. I respect the Catholics for being conservative when it comes to these issues.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
The only thing more numerous than the faults of the Catholic Church is the faults of Martin Luther. Luther would have been fine if he only attacked the faults of the Catholic Church at the time, but instead he attacked the doctrine as well which was an error on his part.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
@HailZeon57
Rightttt....Martin Luther discovered faults 1500 years after the Church was founded. The same Church that Jesus Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against it. Martin Luther was SO much SMARTER than all the Catholic saints and early Church Fathers!
The Bible itself NO WHERE claims to be the sole rule of faith. In fact, it says the opposite. Hold fast to the traditions you were taught either by oral statement or letter of ours.
mmsiciliana 10 months ago
The Catholic interpretation of the Bible goes back 2000 years....This is what Jesus wanted..The Apostlic ministry appointed by Jesus Christ and handed down by succession..Jesus Christ himself gave special and highest athority among the apostles to Peter.(jn 21:15-17)Peter, the first Pope,was to feed the whole flock,lambs and sheep. Peter was given the task of strengthening the apostles and all the faithful in ONE faith so that they taught only ONE TRUTH.(Lk22:33)
csmuskie 3 years ago
There is no indication in John 21 that Peter was made a Pope; The papacy itself is the antichrist. Also, where in the Bible does it say you can pray to Mary or the Saints?
HailZeon57 3 years ago
In the early Christian community of Jerusalem, amoung the twelve,Peter predominates.Acts presents him as their spokesman, Galatians 1:11-19 gives testimony to Peter's importance. St.Paul gives evidence of his special recognition of Peter's authority.After acknowledging that there"were apostles before me."he said he retired to Arabia,and again returned to Damascus "Three years after that I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas (Peter)."
csmuskie 3 years ago
Peter was a leader, yes, but nothing more than that. This gives no indication of a pope. That is a concept created by the Catholic Church. No one in the Bible says or gives indication that Peter was ever a Pope. Christ refused to recognize any pope among his disciples (Matthew 23:8-12). Peter was considered only as one of the pillars of the Church. See Galatians 2:8-10. He was like James and John, one of the pillars of the Church, not its head.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Reputable historians, even if they dont have the Catholic or Chirstian faith, agree that among Christian Churchs the Catholic Church, with the pope at Rome a visible head, it the first Christian Church. St. Peter was the First Pope. Linus the second.Then Cletus,Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, ect. St. Peter lived in Antioch, then he went to Rome where he was martyred about the year 67 AD.. Peter failed his promise and God STILL APPOINTED HIM..HOW LOVING AND TRUSTING IS THAT!!! GOD BLESS
csmuskie 3 years ago
The early Christian church was not Catholic! It slowly evolved into Catholicism. Most historians dispute over who the first five "popes" were anyways. These were most likely the leaders of the church, but not popes. Popes do not have any special powers and people should not regard the Pope as holy; Only God is holy and declaring the Pope holy is robbing God of the glory that he deserves. God Bless you too.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
The task of the Pope is to keep the Church united in "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." To have unity in the faith we are to look to the faith of Peter and his successors. The promise of the Holy Spririt to keep the Church in the truth of holiness given to the Apostles especially applies to the head of the college of the Apostles, the Pope of whom Peter was the first chosen by Jesus Christ Himself.
csmuskie 3 years ago
Like I said, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus appointed Peter "The Pope". The problem, is that people think that the Pope is holy and other stuff like that. That is wrong as only God is holy. The pope is sinful like everyone else.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Of course, the Pope is sinful...We all are..God is calling all of us to holiness....There are many misconceptions that you have about the church.
csmuskie 3 years ago
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that we can acheive perfection. That's another problem. Good works do not get you to heaven; Only believing in Jesus as your savior can. That is not a misconception.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
It is also Wrong to say that we just have to believe. We must act on our faith through the responce of our own Free Will.We must work to fulfill all the obligations imposed on us by God for salvation. Salvation comes from the infinate merits of Jesus Christ,True. But merely believing in Jesus Christ is dead faith unless we activate our faith in good deeds, including the sacramental life together with the love of God and neighbor.
csmuskie 3 years ago
You couldn't of said it better. Good works show our faith. We do good works for the glory of God, not because of some goal we have to reach. But works should not turned into the false belief that they get us to heaven alone.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Neither should faith be turned into a false belief that it gets us into heaven alone.
Good works are not a sign of faith. Good works are a response to grace. That is why faith alone is false doctrine. Faith, like works, is also a response to grace. Bad works are a rejection of God just like lack of faith is a rejection of God.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Good works are a response to God's grace. God's grace is what saves us. Thus receiving God's grace through good works is efficacious to our salvation.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
James 2:24 & 26: See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....faith without works is dead.
primethenpaint 2 years ago 7
in 24 and 26, "faith" is not used in the sense of real, genuine faith. Rather, it is demonic (v 19) useless, (v 20) and dead. (v 26). It is a mere intellectual acceptance of certain truths without trust in Christ as Savior. James is also not saying that a person is saved by works and not by genuine faith. Rather, he is saying that a man is justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Genuine faith will produce good deeds. but only faith that Christ died for all your sins saves.
HailZeon57 2 years ago
No Biblical evidence? Have you not read the 16th chapter of Matthew? Or John 21:15-19? Or noticed the overwhelming occuring of Peter's name being mentioned over others? You must be confusing the difference in language terminology over the similarity in meaning of the terms.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
We can probably debate this till we are blue in the face and not sway one another...I will throw this out..I think we both can agree that God wants all his children to return home to him...His greatest gift to us on this earth IS the gift of Free Will...Maybe we can not all meet in the same Church Pew..But all us Christians can meet in the shadow of the Cross....God Bless you Hailzeon57
csmuskie 3 years ago
As long as we believe that Christ died for us, we are all Christians. It saddens me that so many churches are liberal these days. I respect the Catholic church for staying rather conservative. God Bless you too.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
I cannot imagine any credible historians questioning who the first five popes were. From Gospels, Acts, Paul's writings, the Catholic letters, Revelation, the Didache, and the first 300 years of Christian writings, the early Church was blatantly Catholic.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Matthew 23:11: The greatest among you will be called servant.
Title of Pope: Servant of the servants.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
St. Matthew's Gospel portrays Peter as the unique leader of the whole Church, the one whom the church is founded and to whom Jesus intrusts the power of the Keys of the Kingdom. Peter is also presented as a Christian Martyr(jn 21:18-19) and the confessor of the true Christian faith against false teaching, interpreting Scriptural prophecies (1 pet 1:20-21)
csmuskie 3 years ago
We ask Mary and the Saints to Pray for US....
csmuskie 3 years ago
Why do that instead of praying to God directly. May and the saints can't hear you. Only God answers prayer. 1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them.
HailZeon57 3 years ago
Then do not dare to ever pray for anyone. If anyone asks you to pray for them, call them pagan for not going directly to God. Oh wait, the Scriptures constantly talk about people praying for each other. Paul even talks about praying for people. Guess what, Paul still prays for people and so do all the other saints still pray for people. Who do you think the "cloud of witnesses" are in Hebrews 12:1? The same people who are praying at the throne of God (Rev 8:3-4).
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Unfortunately, this entire comment is not accurate. It was not the translation of Scripture into vernaculars that the Church protested, but the butchering of the Sacred Text by poor translations and eisegetic agenda injections into the text of the translations, something that the "Reformers" are notorious for.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Well actually Martin Luther and many others extracted the early church fathers, papal encyclicals, bull writings, and then finally getting to the Bible 7 books from the old and at least 4 from the new, added alone after faith in Romans 3:28, and taught a philosophy that hardly any to no christians actually believed or taught and your complaining about Catholic perversion of the scripture?
Are you serious?
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
Let me get this striaght...you as a protestant in 2008 have just as much insight and authority to interpret teachings and writings as those whom walked with the apostles? Catholics are the ONLY christians to take the entirety of the Bible and other christian writings into account when interpreting. Peter when speaking as sinful man=fallible. Peter when speaking faith/morals=infallible. That is so clearly elucidated in the Bible.
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
Peter when speaking as sinful man=fallible. Peter when speaking faith/morals=infallible. That is so clearly elucidated in the Bible.
REBEWEOJ could you give me these scriptures you refer to? Thanks
steve2746 3 years ago
You make some great videos! God bless you!
FamaNihilEstCelerius 3 years ago
Ok, so what was the "forged document" that Catholic Church "forged" to establish Marian dogma, or the Mass, or intercessory prayers? I bet you could not list one. There is archeological evidence and biblical evidence of prayer to saints. There is Biblical evidence of the Mass and we 1st and 2nd century AD writing confirming the existence of the Mass and Christian belief in such. You are either ignorant of history or in denial of it.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
So Studier you say that Peter was "proven" to be falliable? Do you even understand the word in reference to Catholic understanding?
the Catholic perspective is to interpret the text(of which was never the only basis for truth, tradition, or teaching)as the original langauge with context taken into account whereas most Protestants use the context in terms of how they want it to fit. I refer to it as customized Christianity which then it is quite easy to understand it's recent growth.
REBEWEOJ 3 years ago
Actually, Roman doctrine is not even to think anything of the Scripture unless it is Roman church doctrine. Rome wants to make Scripture mean what it wants via interpreting it in light of tradition (justification for what they already do). The problem with this is that if you want Rome to be an infallible authority, you must prove it, and that is impossible. How can the church tell God what to believe? No, God must tell the church what to believe.
Studier101 3 years ago
Exactly, God instructs the Church through the Holy Spirit. Scripture attests that the Church is infallible. The Catholic Church is the infallible authority and I can prove it using Scripture. You will find a link to my myspace page on my youtube profile. Follow that link and find under my blog list "Sola Scriptura, Personal Interpretation, and the Invisible Body of Believers..." There I prove that the Catholic Church is the infallible Body of Christ. It is through the true Church that God teach
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Any traditions given by the Apostles that were Divinely meant for the Church for all time have been infallibly recorded in Scripture; such as Baptism, the Lord's Supper, or church government. Any traditions not able to be proven from the exclusive and infallible revelation of God in the Bible must be unsubstantiated; and, hence, speculative and unbinding on the faithful. In fact, after Peter was given the keys, as you claim(I will not debate that here),he was found to be in the wrong = fallible.
Studier101 3 years ago
Well then, I guess you do not interpret literally when Paul told us to hold to his teachings whether by letter or WORD OF MOUTH. (2 Thes2:15). However, you are mixing several issues by your "rebuttal". This is about Sacred Scripture. You, however, attack Sacred Tradition and seemingly Papal Infallibility (which you obviously do not understand). However, the key is that if Scripture is infallible and so are the other two, then they will not contradict. That is the case in Catholicism.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
As for "WORD OF MOUTH" the verse is : "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - 2 (Thess. 2:15 KJV)
First, we must notice what comes before "word" : "which ye have been taught." The Thessalonians had been visited by Paul and "[had] been taught", so Paul is telling them to hold to what they had been taught, whether by letter (1 Thessalonians) or by word (Paul's speech while bodily present). He never even lists them
Studier101 3 years ago
Exactly! You have what Paul taught be epistle only. Catholics have what Paul taught directly and by epistle handed down to them. Catholics still have the words that Paul taught when he was physically present. Protestants do not have such because they reject it (somewhat... they acknowledge some of it unknowingly or unwittingly).
haojiesheng 3 years ago
You are assuming that Catholic practice came from the apostles, history proves otherwise. Paul did not write the Donation of Constantine!
Studier101 3 years ago
Paul also did not write the Constitution of the United States. Neither did Paul write the 99 thesis. Therefore the United States and all of protestantism practices things that do not come from the Apostles, so history proves. Your argument makes no sense. In fact, you make no argument at all.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
You are assuming that things came from the apostles that you have no proof of, except the word of Rome, which you have no proof of. I never claimed that the 99 thesis came from Paul.
Studier101 3 years ago
Catholics never claimed that the Donation of Constantine came from Paul! You, sir, are a moron. You talk in circles. Start making sense or I will start deleting your comments.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
Okay, I get you.
Here is what I mean:
Rome has derived its authority from forgeries and doctrines derived from men, not from any apostolic trust. That is; that the traditions of Rome are built on documents, men, teachings, and practices that have nothing to do with the known practice of the Apostles. So implying that the mass, incense, prayers to Mary, etc.; were taught by tradition of the Apostles, despite that they conradict their known writings, is absurd.
Studier101 3 years ago
Actually, if you just take some time out of your day to read Scripture, you will find the Mass, incense, and saintly intercession detailed in the book of Revelation.
haojiesheng 3 years ago
But you use traditions foreign to the authors to determine what the authors mean. So Catholic interpretation does NOT take into account what the authors mean in context of the whole Scripture and the original languages. Rather, it interprets by means of what it thinks happened and how it thinks the verse should read according to what the church says it ought to read. Therefore it inserts its own fallible, unproven traditions into the Scriptures without cause. Unbiased interpretation? I think not
Studier101 4 years ago
I recommend that you read Providentissimus Deus and Dei Verbum so that you can at least have some notion about the topic you attempt to portray knowledge of. What you state, however, holds very true of protestantism which generally views Scripture from a modern mindset. In addition, when it crosses Catholic truth in Scripture is struggles immensely to explain it away so as not to admit to the reality in which they desire to deny.
haojiesheng 4 years ago
I will check it out. For example, though, take the bodily assumption & sinless perfection of Mary. Now, if you want to say Mary was the most blessed among women, you would have a partial case, but claiming bodily assumption is too much!
Studier101 3 years ago