Discussing the teachings of Catholicism vs Scripture

[JLB]

Everyone is welcome to share what they have studied or learned from the Catholic Church. Please share the appropriate scripture that correlates to the particular teaching you would like to discuss. This is not a thread to demean Catholic people, but is a study of the teachings of Catholicism verses Scripture.
wondering , Tradidi feel free to join in.

God bless you guys.


JLB

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks JLB.
I was thinking just before that we cannot continue to discuss baptism on that other thread.
Could y ou change the title of this thread to:
WHY BAPTISM OF INFANTS

If not, it's OK.

 

[JLB]

Thanks JLB.
I was thinking just before that we cannot continue to discuss baptism on that other thread.
Could y ou change the title of this thread to:
WHY BAPTISM OF INFANTS

If not, it's OK.

How about a thread titled here WHY BAPTISM OF INFANTS?

 

[GodsGrace]

How about a thread titled here WHY BAPTISM OF INFANTS?

Perfect !

 

[WIP]

I appreciate that we have Catholic members that are willing to discuss this topic. I think this will be an interesting discussion so long as all contributors remember to keep things civil with humility. We don't have to be adversaries but remembering to respect each others' positions in our walk with the Lord, we should strive toward unity within the Body of Christ.

 

[JLB]

I appreciate that we have Catholic members that are willing to discuss this topic. I think this will be an interesting discussion so long as all contributors remember to keep things civil with humility. We don't have to be adversaries but remembering to respect each others' positions in our walk with the Lord, we should strive toward unity within the Body of Christ.

Yes sir. Please feel free to add your perspective.

 

[Tradidi]

I just read the comment from your fellow Administrator (for_his_glory) and wonder whether I'll be wasting my time discussing Catholic doctrine here. All Catholic doctrine is completely in agreement with Scripture, although not all doctrine is spelled out so as to convince even the unbelieving Thomases of today. I am willing to try discussing with any noble-minded Bereans, I just don't see the sense in throwing pearls to any closed-minded Thessalonians. I've been there and done that, and it's a complete waste of time. And I've already met a few of these Thessalonians on this forum.

In the same comment from your fellow Administrator, we already see a great handicap that most people here will start off with, the mother of all "traditions of men", Sola Scriptura. The idea that "everything we ought to believe must be spelled out in Scripture" is itself an unscriptural tradition that was invented in the 16th century. Not only is this doctrine not found in Scripture, it is explicitly refuted by Scripture.

Catholics on the other hand believe our Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. All the doctrines taught by Our Lord and His Apostles were initially handed down orally, and only later on were some of them written down, not in the form of a Catechism where everything is clearly spelled out and indexed, but rather as a collection of individual books and letters. And as St. Peter warned us, these Scriptures are hard to understand and easy to twist unto our own destruction. Hence, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that "the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth", not Scripture. This does not mean that the Church can contradict Scripture, as some like to gratuitously claim, but rather that the Church is the guardian of Scripture, making sure that Scripture is faithfully preserved and interpreted.

The fact that we start off with two completely different Rules of Faith will make any discussion difficult, and will certainly allow the unbelievers plenty of room to "blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude 1:10). On top of that, most people on this forum have allowed Luther to rip quite a few pages out of their Bible, which complicates things even further.

So, I believe the best place to start would be to discuss our Rule of Faith, rather than to work with two different standards to try and come to the same measurement.

 

[JLB]

I just read the comment from your fellow Administrator (for_his_glory) and wonder whether I'll be wasting my time discussing Catholic doctrine here.

I knew that would be coming which is why I suggested to move the thread here.

 

[JLB]

All Catholic doctrine is completely in agreement with Scripture, although not all doctrine is spelled out so as to convince even the unbelieving Thomases of today. I am willing to try discussing with any noble-minded Bereans, I just don't see the sense in throwing pearls to any closed-minded Thessalonians. I've been there and done that, and it's a complete waste of time. And I've already met a few of these Thessalonians on this forum.

That sword cuts both ways.

I could say the same thing about people who decide to privately interpret what the scriptures say, which is no more that twisting the scriptures.

It’s up to you, whether you want to discuss anything. Just make sure you have scripture.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Catholics on the other hand believe our Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter.

Christ Jesus our Lord and His teachings are our foundation.

His Apostles taught what Jesus Christ Taught them.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
Matthew 28:18-20

• teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;

Which is why we must remain within the framework His doctrine, being careful not to go beyond His doctrine and teach things that He Himself did not teach.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.


This is why Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ was so adamant about warning us against people who bring teachings that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ; teachings that arise from their private interpretations.


knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21

• no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation

again


Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
1 Timothy 4:1-3

• the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons

• speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry,

We know for sure that Peter was married.


Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever. So He touched her hand, and the fever left her. And she arose and served them. Matthew 8:14-15


Where did the idea of forbidding priests to marry come from?

It certainly wasn’t in the scriptures.

Each person must make the choice to either remain unmarried in order to devote themselves more fully to the Lord or not. It can not be imposed upon them.



JLB

 

[JLB]

And as St. Peter warned us, these Scriptures are hard to understand and easy to twist unto our own destruction. Hence, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that "the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth", not Scripture. This does not mean that the Church can contradict Scripture, as some like to gratuitously claim, but rather that the Church is the guardian of Scripture, making sure that Scripture is faithfully preserved and interpreted.

I agree.


Lets see how this works out between us.



JLB

 

[Tradidi]

Christ Jesus our Lord and His teachings are our foundation.

His Apostles taught what Jesus Christ Taught them.

And their disciples, the Apostolic Fathers, taught what the Apostles taught them.
And their disciples, the Early Church Fathers, taught what the Apostolic Fathers taught them.
And their disciples, the Early Church, taught what the Early Church Fathers taught them.
And their disciples...
Until, in the 16th century one apostate monk decided to throw everything out the window and start his own church. Many have followed his example every since, so that now we have 30,000+ different churches, as well as innumerable freelancers.

 

[GodsGrace]

I just read the comment from your fellow Administrator (for_his_glory) and wonder whether I'll be wasting my time discussing Catholic doctrine here. All Catholic doctrine is completely in agreement with Scripture, although not all doctrine is spelled out so as to convince even the unbelieving Thomases of today. I am willing to try discussing with any noble-minded Bereans, I just don't see the sense in throwing pearls to any closed-minded Thessalonians. I've been there and done that, and it's a complete waste of time. And I've already met a few of these Thessalonians on this forum.

In the same comment from your fellow Administrator, we already see a great handicap that most people here will start off with, the mother of all "traditions of men", Sola Scriptura. The idea that "everything we ought to believe must be spelled out in Scripture" is itself an unscriptural tradition that was invented in the 16th century. Not only is this doctrine not found in Scripture, it is explicitly refuted by Scripture.

Catholics on the other hand believe our Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. All the doctrines taught by Our Lord and His Apostles were initially handed down orally, and only later on were some of them written down, not in the form of a Catechism where everything is clearly spelled out and indexed, but rather as a collection of individual books and letters. And as St. Peter warned us, these Scriptures are hard to understand and easy to twist unto our own destruction. Hence, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that "the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth", not Scripture. This does not mean that the Church can contradict Scripture, as some like to gratuitously claim, but rather that the Church is the guardian of Scripture, making sure that Scripture is faithfully preserved and interpreted.

The fact that we start off with two completely different Rules of Faith will make any discussion difficult, and will certainly allow the unbelievers plenty of room to "blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude 1:10). On top of that, most people on this forum have allowed Luther to rip quite a few pages out of their Bible, which complicates things even further.

So, I believe the best place to start would be to discuss our Rule of Faith, rather than to work with two different standards to try and come to the same measurement.

Tradidi,,,,
Please post your Rule of Faith, if you haven't already - I just got here.

I'll tell you why I think that allowing scripture to be the authority can help us to steer away from misconceptions that grow over the years.

The Early Fathers picked the books that would create canon for a reason...many were rejected.
I'm sorry the Didache didn't make it, and Barnabas came close and I wish that had been in scripture too - from the little I've read of him.

Having said that, I'd like to add that without a church to interpret scripture, we're kind of left with persons believing different doctrine that may, or may not, be scriptural. And we on this side of the isle must accept that this is true.

OTOH,,,,I disagree with the belief of the CC that ALL dogma, and even doctrine, must be accepted in order to be called a Catholic. Priest know that not all their parishioners accept all teachings, however the parishioners ARE SUPPOSED TO!

This is a lot to ask in my humble opinion.

Again, please state your rule of faith or direct me to your post.
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

And their disciples, the Apostolic Fathers, taught what the Apostles taught them.
And their disciples, the Early Church Fathers, taught what the Apostolic Fathers taught them.
And their disciples, the Early Church, taught what the Early Church Fathers taught them.
And their disciples...
Until, in the 16th century one apostate monk decided to throw everything out the window and start his own church. Many have followed his example every since, so that now we have 30,000+ different churches, as well as innumerable freelancers.

The freelancers are included in the 30,000.

I agree with what you've stated above.

Here's my problem:
Everything started to change after 325AD when it was no longer allowed to persecute Christians...thanks to Constantine.

Then, when Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius, everything really began to fall apart.

Whereas before ONLY those that wished to follow the Christian religion were made a part of the community, NOW ALL had to be members of the church - even those who had to intention of being a Christian person.

As I'm sure you know,,,at this point EVERYONE had to be baptized. A practice which is still carried forward today, and, because of AUGUSTINE, has been made even worse by the teaching of Original Sin and that babies are damned by having the guilt of Adam's sin AT BIRTH.

 

[for_his_glory]

The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the one true church doing any of the following: praying to Mary, praying to the saints, venerating Mary, submitting to a pope, having a select priesthood, baptizing an infant, observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form.

The Protestant Reformation was followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church/Orthodox had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.

Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church's teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The “first church” and “one true church” is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.

 

[Tradidi]

The Protestant Reformation was followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church/Orthodox had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.

Unfortunately, [he says,] it is our daily experience, that now under the Gospel (his) the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy. (Walch XIII, 2195.)

The people feel they are free from the bonds and fetters of the Pope, but now they want to get rid also of the Gospel and of all the laws of God. (Walch XIV, 195. )

Everybody thinks that Christian liberty and licentiousness of the flesh are one and the same thing, as if now everybody was allowed to do what he wants. (Tischr. i, 180.)

Townsfolk and peasants, men and women, children and servants, princes, magistrates and subjects, are all going to the devil. (Erl. 14, 389.)

If we succeed in expelling one devil, he immediately is replaced by seven others who are much worse. We can then expect that after having driven away the monks, we shall see arise a race seven times worse than the former. (Erl. XXXVI, 411.)

Avarice, usury, debauchery, drunkenness, blasphemy, lying and cheating are far more prevalent now than they were under the Papacy. This state of morals brings general discredit on the Gospel and its preachers, as the people say, if this Gospel were true, the persons professing it would be more pious. (Erl. I, 192.)

 

[Tradidi]

The following facts have been clearly established from Luther’s own writings:

At the beginning of the Reformation, Luther acted as a downright hypocrite towards Pope Leo X, and shortly before dying, he wrote a most low, coarse, disreputable, and satanical book of one hundred and fifty-seven pages, against Pope Paul III. Even supposing Protestantism was right and the Catholic Church was wrong, such a book as Luther wrote “Against the Popery of Rome, instituted by the Devil,” would be a lasting disgrace to any author.

Having rejected the authority of the Pope, he admits the authority of Satan; for he informs us in plain, unmistakeable words, that the Devil argued in favour of his doctrine of justification by faith alone, and against Mass, Mary, and the Saints.

Strange to say, he expects Christ will approve of his preaching those very doctrines, which had met with the sanction of Satan. For Luther has the boldness to assure us, that Our Lord looks upon him as an Evangelist, and that he himself will not allow his teaching to be judged by anyone, not even by an Angel.

Having thus set the authority of the Pope at nought, admitted the authority of Satan, proclaimed his own authority as that of an Evangelist, who is not even to be judged by an Angel, Luther boldly rejects the inspired Word of God, as contained in St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Apocalypse or Book of Revelations. As to the Epistle of St. James, it is only a straw epistle, because, in opposition to Luther, St. James ventures to “attribute justification to the works."

Not satisfied with this, he even falsifies the Bible by adding the word “alone” to Rom. III. 28. He has the honesty to tell us why he does so. It was in order to express his doctrine of justification by faith alone in a more “clear and powerful” manner. The text in the English Protestant Bible is: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Luther translates : “So we now hold it, that man is justified, without doing the works of the law, alone by faith."

We can hardly expect, that a man who thus deals with the inspired Word of God, will respect the laws of God. Now, one of the most fundamental laws, promulgated here on earth by the Son of God, is the law concerning the unity of Christian marriage. Luther’s teaching, however, is in direct opposition to this. He says : “I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives.” Nor does he, in the case of Prince Philip of Hesse, shrink from putting this his doctrine into practice; for Luther wilfully and deliberately signed a document granting his Highness leave to have two wives at the same time. Moreover, in one of his sermons, the Reformer of Germany did not blush to sanction adultery under circumstances, which ought never to be mentioned from a Christian pulpit.

Is it God, or is it Satan who speaks through Luther ?

Whilst constantly asserting his own authority and acting with the utmost recklessness, concerning the Holy Bible and the unity of marriage, Luther treats with an insufferable arrogance and intolerance all those who refuse to submit to his authority. As to the Jews, it is well known how, in the Middle Ages, they were constantly protected by the Popes, even in Rome itself, where they had a special quarter of the town allotted to them. How differently Luther acts. He says the churches (synagogues) and schools of the cursed Jews are to be burnt down, their houses destroyed, their Prayer Books taken away from them, their Rabbis forbidden to teach, they are to be refused all legal protection when they go into the country; all their money is to be taken from them, and if all that is not sufficient, they are to be driven off like mad dogs.

A satanical hatred of the Pope and of all Roman Catholics is one of the characteristic features in the history and character of Luther. According to his views Popery is instituted by the Devil, the Pope is Antichrist, whose tongue ought to be torn out through the hack of his neck and nailed to the gallows; the Catholic Bishops are “wolves, tyrants, murderers of souls, and the Apostles of Antichrist;” every Catholic is “at least a murderer, a robber, a persecutor.” And he asks the Princes : “Why do we not wash our hands in their blood?"

But even Protestants differing from him do not fare any better. So, for example, he denounces those who do not believe that the very same Body of Our Lord which was nailed to the Cross is received in the Last Supper, as blasphemers and enemies of Christ, and he adds that they cannot hope for any communion with him (Luther). He says: “I should have to condemn myself with them into the depths of Hell, if I were to hold with them."

Now, many Protestants in this country do not believe in the Real Presence, and, nevertheless, they praise Luther who condemns them to the everlasting flames of Hell.

The results of his teaching are such as might be expected from what we have already said. He maintains that the poor man “has ample reason to break forth with the flail and the club.” The peasants do break forth with the flail and the club. Luther now advises them to go home quietly. They refuse. Luther then orders everybody to “strike in to strangle and stab, secretly or openly.” “For in the case of a man in open rebellion everybody is both chief justice and executioner."

One hundred thousand peasants are killed or executed.

Such were the political consequences of his teaching. The moral results were even more disastrous; for wherever Luther’s teaching was accepted, the Last Supper was treated with contempt, the former generosity in supporting the clergy, churches, schools, the sick and the poor, ceased; children were neglected, drunkenness began to spread like a deluge, in fact every virtue decreased, and every kind of vice increased. Luther tells us that, under the Pope, people had had only one Devil, and that now, under the Gospel, they had “seven worse ones."

Would it not have been better if he had left the poor people with the one Devil, and had spared them the six other worse ones ?

A man who pretends to be a Reformer is sent either by God or by Satan. Now, every single sign of a Divine mission is utterly wanting, both in Luther’s teaching, and in the results of his teaching. How different in every respect are not Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the prophets of old from the would be Reformer? But, can Luther perhaps be compared to the Apostles? Let us see. Did St. Peter, or St. Paul, or any of them, ever dare to allow a Christian to have two wives at the same time? Is not this fact alone sufficient to prove to every fair-minded man, that Luther was not sent by God? Moreover, was the result of St. Paul’s teaching an increase of drunkenness and every kind of vice, and a decrease of every kind of virtue? No, certainly not. Luther, therefore, bears no resemblance to any of those men, of whom the Scripture tells us that they were sent by God as Reformers of their nation or of the world. We, therefore, refuse to believe in his Divine mission, and that on Scriptural grounds. But mark also another reason. Luther refused to believe that Carlstadt had the sanction of Heaven, and for a reason which is very instructive. Writing against this pretended Reformer, he says, “God does not break up the old order for a new one without working great signs. Therefore we cannot believe a person, who appeals to his own spirit and to his inward feeling, and rushes head-long against the usual order of God, unless he also performs miracles."

Now, Luther, I judge you by your own test. Where are the miracles, with which you prove your Divine mission? You know very well, that you never performed a single one. And therefore we would be acting in opposition to your own advice, were we to believe in you.

But, if Luther was not commissioned by God, then the glorious old Church of our Forefathers, the Church of which we say, in the Apostle’s Creed : “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church” is the true Church of God. And, in that case, not Luther, but the great and illustrious St. Ignatius, was the real Reformer of the sixteenth century.

Luther's Own Statements Concerning his Teaching and its Results

 

[for_his_glory]

I just read the comment from your fellow Administrator (for_his_glory) and wonder whether I'll be wasting my time discussing Catholic doctrine here. All Catholic doctrine is completely in agreement with Scripture, although not all doctrine is spelled out so as to convince even the unbelieving Thomases of today. I am willing to try discussing with any noble-minded Bereans, I just don't see the sense in throwing pearls to any closed-minded Thessalonians. I've been there and done that, and it's a complete waste of time. And I've already met a few of these Thessalonians on this forum.

In the same comment from your fellow Administrator, we already see a great handicap that most people here will start off with, the mother of all "traditions of men", Sola Scriptura. The idea that "everything we ought to believe must be spelled out in Scripture" is itself an unscriptural tradition that was invented in the 16th century. Not only is this doctrine not found in Scripture, it is explicitly refuted by Scripture.

Catholics on the other hand believe our Rule of Faith is the Magisterium of the Church that Christ founded upon Peter. All the doctrines taught by Our Lord and His Apostles were initially handed down orally, and only later on were some of them written down, not in the form of a Catechism where everything is clearly spelled out and indexed, but rather as a collection of individual books and letters. And as St. Peter warned us, these Scriptures are hard to understand and easy to twist unto our own destruction. Hence, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that "the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth", not Scripture. This does not mean that the Church can contradict Scripture, as some like to gratuitously claim, but rather that the Church is the guardian of Scripture, making sure that Scripture is faithfully preserved and interpreted.

The fact that we start off with two completely different Rules of Faith will make any discussion difficult, and will certainly allow the unbelievers plenty of room to "blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude 1:10). On top of that, most people on this forum have allowed Luther to rip quite a few pages out of their Bible, which complicates things even further.

So, I believe the best place to start would be to discuss our Rule of Faith, rather than to work with two different standards to try and come to the same measurement.

Where does it say in 1 Timothy 3:15 the Roman Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? It is written that the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth is God, not denominations or non-denominations. The pillar and foundation of truth is also found in Matthew 16:13-20 which is Christ Jesus in whom He established His true church through Peter on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2.

 

[for_his_glory]

Unfortunately, [he says,] it is our daily experience, that now under the Gospel (his) the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy. (Walch XIII, 2195.)

The people feel they are free from the bonds and fetters of the Pope, but now they want to get rid also of the Gospel and of all the laws of God. (Walch XIV, 195. )

Everybody thinks that Christian liberty and licentiousness of the flesh are one and the same thing, as if now everybody was allowed to do what he wants. (Tischr. i, 180.)

Townsfolk and peasants, men and women, children and servants, princes, magistrates and subjects, are all going to the devil. (Erl. 14, 389.)

If we succeed in expelling one devil, he immediately is replaced by seven others who are much worse. We can then expect that after having driven away the monks, we shall see arise a race seven times worse than the former. (Erl. XXXVI, 411.)

Avarice, usury, debauchery, drunkenness, blasphemy, lying and cheating are far more prevalent now than they were under the Papacy. This state of morals brings general discredit on the Gospel and its preachers, as the people say, if this Gospel were true, the persons professing it would be more pious. (Erl. I, 192.)

What does Walch XIII, 2195; XIV 195; Tischr. i, 180; Erl. 14, 389; XXXVI, 411; I 192 which is a man's teaching/doctrine have to do with the truth of the doctrines of Christ found in the scriptures?

 

[Tradidi]

What does Walch XIII, 2195; XIV 195; Tischr. i, 180; Erl. 14, 389; XXXVI, 411; I 192 which is a man's teaching/doctrine have to do with the truth of the doctrines of Christ found in the scriptures?

I explained that in the part that you thought fit to delete.

Seeing that you prefer to edit and delete my posts, rather than discuss, I will no longer waste my time replying to you.

I wish you all the best.