DID I REALLY LEAVE THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH?

ChristianTruth.com ^ | William Webster

[Le Chien Rouge]

Evangelicals and Roman Catholics,in the immortal words of Rodney King:

Can’t we all just get along???

PS..I’m Catholic

[GCC Catholic]

You know what's funny? I DO read the patristics. I have the complete set on my home computer. Reading them has done more than anything else to convince me of the AHISTORICAL nature of Catholicism, that whatever else they may have been, they WEREN'T Catholics, no matter how much Catholicism tries to claim them.

Having also read some Patristics, I find that claim EXTREMELY difficult to believe. The doctrines are there, albeit often in an incomplete form, but they're there. Certainly, the anti-Sacramental, Sola Scriptura approach is not.

Also, you have failed to answer what we make of the first 1024 years before the schism. Where did they go wrong to make what became the Catholics and Orthodox?

For what it's worth, I don't expect an answer.

[surroundedbyblue]

Um, it sounds like you’re the one with the problem, not me. I’m not interested in smearing anyone.

[battousai]

I would challenge you to read the documentation and simply ask yourself this question, Is this what the Bible teaches about salvation?

umm.. yes

[markomalley]

I was born and raised Roman Catholic

Assuming that the author was baptized a Catholic, then, yes, he is still a Catholic.

[SnakeDoctor]

We left the Catholic church, but not the “catholic” church ... we’re still in His church, just not theirs.

SnakeDoc

[Salvation]

LOL! You've been here only a month, have posted to only three threads -- long screeds that are full of errors, by the way, and you expect us to believe this?

Beckwith is right. Face it.

bkaycee

Since May 17, 2010

 

Radio Replies Second Volume - Unity of the Church  June 13, 2010

 

How John Calvin Made me a Catholic June 07, 2010

 

Is Sola Scriptura biblical? {Open) Monday, June 07, 2010

(PS. We DO have ways of checking up on you.)

[bkaycee]

I was born and raised Roman Catholic .

Assuming that the author was baptized a Catholic, then, yes, he is still a Catholic.

I was born, baptized and raised Roman Catholic as well. I reject the claims of the Pacapy as being the chief shepherd of Christianity.

Am I still Catholic?

[count-your-change]

While many of the same arguments you make have been made individually here in various posts, it is quite refreshing to see them all in one setting.
Unfortunately, so much of what passes for debate here is so besotted with personal emotion that what you cite will not be examined to expose truth or error but through the lens of petty offence, “it offends me, therefore it's false”, so common on these threads.
I am sure you have spent some time reading to posts on FR, (lurking) before signing on and will recognize that a well reasoned position is often met with simple minded denial rather than refutation, blandly ignorant misrepresentation, and, if all else fails, assumption of a pretense of indifference to the validity of the evidence.

Because some posters take any wounding to their favored doctrine as a personal attack they feel free to return what they see as acceptable turn about.
I hope you have a boiler plate hide.

Your very interesting and informative post would be hard to equal, though I hope you will have a go at it again.

Welcome!

[wmfights]

...a good reason to claim that Sola Scriptura is illegitimate. That the idea is foreign to the first 1200+ years of Christianity will suffice.

A little reading of history refutes this.

We can always use the Scriptures themselves to show this anti-Scripture alone argument is false, but if you are a member of a church that holds other things like "tradition", or a group of theologians meeting together, as equals of Scripture that won't do. We do have the sketchy history of the many pre-reformation independent Christian churches that held that Scripture was the final authority.

Also, I came across this tidbit in Miller's Church History:

Clement of the Scotch Church was condemned as a heretic by a council at Soissons in March 744 AD. He was condemned for holding the view that "no councils, writings, decisions of the church that are contrary to Scripture had authority over Christians".

So history shows us the idea of Sola Scriptura was not foreign prior to 1200 AD.

[battousai]

BTW, the Bible you a referencing is the product of the Catholic church, kind of ironic don’t you think. It was the early church which approved the books considered to be inspired and thus included in the canon.

[markomalley]

Am I still Catholic?

Yes.

(You may reject that label all day long, but in the eyes of the Church you still are one)

[GCC Catholic]

So history shows us the idea of Sola Scriptura was not foreign prior to 1200 AD.

Then I stand corrected.

But it also shows that such a view was already being rejected as heretical.

[johngrace]

"SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is sufficient and the Ultimate Authority in all matters of faith and morals) is Unscriptural(What!)."

ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IS JESUS(WORD OF GOD)

JESUS SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY"

NOT INK ON PAPER ALONE

ORAL TRADITION(Spoken in Authority)

2Timothy3:16"All Scripture is God-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Theopneustos, God-BREATHED].”

But by whose Authority?

Well what about this scripture?

JOHN20:21 "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father Has SENT ME, I am SENDING YOU." 22And with that he BREATHED on THEM and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

THEM?

THE APOSTLES

WHAT DID HE GIVE THEM?

"AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME, I AM SENDING YOU."

POWER OF ATTORNEY?

One person (the principal) appoints another person to act as an agent on his or her behalf, thus conferring AUTHORITY on the agent to perform certain acts or functions on behalf of the principal.

WHICH CAME FIRST THE APOSTLES OR NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?

HOW DOES FAITH COME BY?

ROMAN 10:17 "So FAITH comes from Hearing, and Hearing by the word of Christ."

IT DOES NOT SAY BY READING AND READING THE WORD?

BUT IF SO BY WHOSE AUTHORITY?

YOU, ME and THE MAN ON THE MOON?

HOW ABOUT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?

JESUS BREATHED ON APOSTLES WHO WROTE SCRIPTURE!

To Be Continued.

[small voice in the wilderness]

“...papers please...” Your post has a slight German accent again...

[battousai]

“a group of theologians meeting together, as equals of Scripture that won’t do.”

Yet it was a group of ‘theologians’ meeting together that gave you the scripture, which then the ‘reformers’ butchered removing books as they willed it, despite claiming this same council to be valid and thus the original Canon, as they consider the Church prior to their ‘reforms’ to be valid.

You can’t have the cake and eat it too, besides the scripture it self supports apostolic tradition too:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:14.

[wmfights]

Then I stand corrected.

No problem. I enjoy these arguments because I can always find things I didn't know before.

But it also shows that such a view was already being rejected as heretical.

By the dominant State Church, but not Christianity as a whole. There have always been independent Christian churches and a great many of them held to Scripture as the final authority.

[GCC Catholic]

Since I'm not sticking around on the thread either, I will address what we have here:

Note the MANNER in which Bouyer speaks - he is not "disagreeing with me" - he speaks of how the Bible alone is more fully and directly the Word of God compared to its other expressions (i.e. Tradition, Magisterium) and even then only "in one sense". This is nuanced theological writing.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church were far more immersed in Scripture than most Catholics are today, and I would even suggest more than most Protestants are today. Full Stop.

What that DOES NOT mean is that they were subscribing to "Sola Scriptura." They had the Councils, and held to their teachings as authoritative, EVEN when they had to solve the problems that arose BY LOOKING OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example - that Christians believe in a Triune God is clear from Scripture; however, to contend with the Arian heresy that arose (among others) that sought to detract from Christ's divinity, or from others which sought to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or sought to say that the three Persons were simply three "masks" of the one God, it was necessary to draw from sources outside of Scripture. Likewise, writers as early as Clement (ca. 96) and Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 150) were already describing the See of Rome in a manner which seems to give it primacy over the others.

Given that Bouyer's book "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism" was printed in 1956, and that the Index of Forbidden Books was still in use, I think that we would have heard something about it if he were advocating that the Church was actually wrong.

I think it would make far more sense to view Bouyer's statement in light of this discussion on the whole work: Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation. It discusses some of the things that Protestantism got right, and others that Protestantism got wrong.

---

I saw what you said upthread about having been raised Catholic. I don't know what happened that caused you to leave, but remember that you are always, ALWAYS welcome back.

You are in my prayers.

[bkaycee]

Yes, having conversed a bit on other forums, I am familiar with all kinds of responses.

Many of them emotional, lacking any sustantiation.

Sinners reject the Gospel for many reasons. They think it foolish

1 Cor 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

[wmfights]

Yet it was a group of ‘theologians’ meeting together that gave you the scripture,...

If we go back and look at history you will see that the emergence of our Scriptures is truly one of the miracles of God not men.

The Scriptures were recognized as such very early after the end of the Apostolic Era. The Muratorium Fragment will attest to it. The only books that were "controversial" are found at the very end of the NT. No council met and decided which books were "in" until late in the 4th century. The only authoritative pronouncement was made just 30 years before that and in that case only confirmed what was already well known.

You may be coming at this from the RC perspective, but ask yourself how did Jerome know which books to translate when no council had met to discuss the question. Also, if you examine history closely you will find the RCC never made an authoritative statement on what comprised the Scriptures until Trent (1450 yrs after the end of the Apostolic Era) and then they added books that were previously not considered Scripture.