I believe Paul's writings. I don't believe that Acts 9:15 is God creating the "Catholic" church because it doesn't say that. Where in any of Scripture does it say to practice how the catholics do?

Ah. That explains much.

Ok. I was there once, too.

What denomination were the seven churches (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea. that John wrote to at the behest of Jesus (via a vision on Patmos) in the book of Revelation?

I'm not saying that it does. I'm telling you that you ought to consider your position on believing only what is written in the four gospels. You said that if it ain't in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, it's not from God but from men.

Out of curiosity, what do you think about the Old Testament?

The response was to a request to 'find the keys.' The keys in Isaiah represent a 'chief steward' or 'prime minister' position in the Davidic kingdom. The words from Matthew are clearly the words of Christ bestowing a similar position on Peter. Its called typeology.





 

Thank you, Pope HighLigher for your personal interpretation of scripture.



 

Where in scripture does it say 'faith alone' or 'scripture alone?' Hint: It doesn't.



I have volumes about Catholic belief and practice in scripture. Here's a few favorites.



John 6:54 Then
Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh
of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.







The nouns in this verse of Acts are 'articular nouns.' They refer to specific doctrines, breaking of the bread and specific prayer --- wow! liturgy!
I can do this all day...

You are welcome. You see I don't need a "pope" or any religious organization to tell me what I think. Read the Scripture, pray to God in Jesus' name, and wait for the Holy Spirit to lead me. Jesus is my "pope" and it is wonderful!

I believe that the OT was inspired by God. The OT is not only history but religious instruction for the Jews. The Law. I view the catholic church much like the Jews, they need a religious order to try to obtain salvation. Jesus Christ did away with that and is the only Priest I need.

indeed...

highlighter;  who interprets Scripture for you?

One of the ways the Lord convicted me about my views of His Church was to expose to me the reality that tho as a Protestant I SAID the "Bible" was all that mattered, what really mattered was only my personal interpretation of a shortened version of the Scriptures.

I also got tripped up by terms I thought were "not Biblical" like for example, the "Mass".  Where is the word "MASS" in the Bible I said?  Indeed...same place as the word "Trinity".  Nowhere.  Tho both concepts are clearly taught.

"Tradition" was another word that ripped me up.  Yet as we see in the thread topic, the "T"radition existed all the way back into the Scriptures, tho TRADITION preceded "Scriptures" and indeed without TRADITION, rightly understood, we would not have the canon of Scripture at all.

You see, we do not worship a book, we worship Christ, who has given us both verbal and written teachings that were handed down by the Apostles.

As for the rubbish about the "Copts" {where does such gibberish come from?} we have the Didache which is a text that precedes some of the New Testament and indicates doctrines taught by the Catholic faith ever since.

Fine, but the way you said it sounded as if you were saying that Isaiah was conveying a message from Christ to Peter.

Exactly, he told ALL followers to do that.  'Catholic' literally means 'universal' - in other words, at its inception, it was the church of all believers.

But I get that you don't agree with that.  

 














 

With all due respect, there are those (myself included) who believe that the Roman Catholic church is the falling away prophesied in 2nd Thessalonians 2. I also believe that through the times of persecution and suppression by various geopolitical powers (sometimes even the RCc) God preserved a remnant of His true church.

The church of Rome was an independent world power from 326 AD when Constantinople became the capitol of the Roman Empire through the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation. During that time monasteries were the European centers of learning. As a result the catholic church had the ability to write history, especially church history, to suit their own purposes.

In my opinion, an examination of the scriptures without the filter of centuries of catholic dogma reveals that God's original design for His church varies quite significantly from both the Roman church and Protestant churches born out of the reformation.

The same reason you need a Pastor, except mine is in a direct and unbroken line to the first Pope, Peter the Apostle, who was handed the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ Himself. In other words, I know my Church is right because Christ said that hell would not stand against it.



Agreed.



Agreed. That is the central belief of the Church.

Why is the pope addressed as "holy father"?

Doesn't this disagree with the words of Christ in Matthew 23:9?

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted"

Here Jesus is speaking about the Pharisees, but He is addressing a group that included His apostles, and I assert that this warning was specifically for His apostles. So why would the self proclaimed modern day "prince of the apostles" allow himself to be called father when Jesus clearly states that this is an appellation reserved for God and God alone?

Best way for you to answer your own question is to get back into the Bible.  Why then does Paul refer to himself as "father"??  {etc}

Paul refers to himself as father in a metaphorical sense. It's a demonstration of Paul's care for the people he wrote to. It's the same reason that he addresses them as little children. It's not a way for him to demonstrate preeminence.

Jesus is clearly condemning the use of father as an address of preeminence in Matthew 23.

'Metaphor' card played!

Well of course!

Good grief, look thruout the Scriptures and "father" is used as a term of endearment and to represent authority;  Joseph, Job, Eliakim, Elijah, Abraham, all are referred to as "father" in the Old Testament and Abraham and Isaac are referred to as "father" in the New Testament.

Christ's words in that passage you refer to are clearly not to taken literally, because "Rabbi" means "teacher" and "doctor" is merely the Latin word for teacher as well, and I bet you call lots of folks both teachers and doctors...and Christ clearly established teachers among the Church!  So should we not refer to professors and algebra tutors as "teachers" because Christ said not to?

Good Sir open your eyes...

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually.  He is referring to those who should not be granted authority outside their scope, those who would assert authority not granted them.

The Holy Father is a spiritual father to all who follow Christ;  he guides and directs, under the direct authority granted him by Christ himself.

Now, who SHOULDN'T BE called "father"?

Any leader {especially Protestants leaders} who assert authority not granted him by Christ.  

1 Corinthians 4:14-15"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers:for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

"As my beloved sons" - Actual sons or metaphorical sons?

Philippians 2:22 "But you know Timothy's proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel." - Was Timothy's actual son or metaphorical son?

When a metaphor is used a single aspect or limited aspects of the symbol are used to demonstrate attributes of what is being described. In these passages Paul is not using the symbol of a father to demonstrate his preeminence over the brethren at Corinth or Timothy. It would be this use of the appellation of father that Jesus warns against in Matthew 23.

I follow Christ and I have no relationship with or to the pope.

Matthew 23 does not state that we should not call anyone rabbi, but that we should not be called rabbi as some love to be openly addressed in public. They love the honor of being called rabbi. Nor should we call a man father because the title of father, and more importantly the honor associated with that title is reserved for God.

The Protestant version of "I follow Christ" is, ultimately, defined by nne other than themselves; "I" define who and what Christ is...for "me".

This is the problem:  When Christ ascended, he left us with a test.

Do we REALLY believe in His promises...or do we "believe" only in those promises we are comfortable with.

Protestants recoil at the thought that Christ would actually promise to leave us with an actual Church, a body.  This is not surprising since they reject His Body in the first place.  When I came to grips with that, I was ashamed.  And I could do nothing other than accept Christ, that is, truly ACCEPT Him for what He did in full, part of which was the bestowing of real, functioning authority even on imperfect people.

Good thing I'm not a Protestant.

 

Paul was the apostle onto the Gentiles.
Look at the New Testament as to what both wrote. Peter only has two small books towards the back. The majority is by Paul.
Also, look who was upbraided for siding with the Jews and keeping the Gentiles on the margins of Christianity.
That should tell you something about relative importance.

But as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church teaches, "Liberty in doctrine, unity in Christ." ; so, I will accept the Catholics as Christian brothers since they profess Christ as the Savior and not hold a bias against them for their distinct beliefs. For once we both cross the River Jordan, it will be immaterial at that point anyway.

Now, on topics such as 9mm vs. .40 S&W or beans in chili; then it's game on!  

I do.

So where do you catholics say that non-catholics go wrong? I already know part of that answer and it's by not believing in the catholic church. But how else are non-catholics gone astray?

Very good post bro! I just get nauseous every time a catholic refers to the catholic church as "the church".

You really are stretching on that 2nd picture.

I still believe also that Christ was referring to the "Revelation" knowledge that the Father gave to Peter in order for him to make utterance to the fact that indeed Jesus was in his words and prompted by the Holy Spirit of God, "You are the Anointed One, the Son of the Living God."

This is what I have received and quite some time ago as to the truth of this happening between Jesus Christ and His disciples recorded in the NT of the Holy Bible.

And nothing more.
In any church we must have this kind of knowledge to be lead properly as God even gave His own life  in order that we receive this omnipotent gift from Him!
To be in us forever! The potential mind of Christ at our disposal!

Hope I don't get flamed too bad but as we know, the possibility in a thread such as this does have its high probabilities!

Thanks,

SAE

Yeah but what about the first one Red?

I'm not even sure if they issue out crowns that are that nice in heaven!

In spite of the fact that the Scripture says we are not to interpret Scripture as individuals.

THAT is just one of the many reasons Christ gave us the Church, the only Church, the Catholic Church.

Yes, because Protestants and Evangelicals live in ashes and sackcloth....

Actually, it's not because you don't believe in the Catholic Church, but rather because everything you believe about the Catholic Church is wrong.

Aside from that, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are not based on Scripture, so much so that Protestants had to rip certain books out of the Bible to sort of make their case.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the only thing to be followed. Where we will all agree is that Scripture cannot be conflicted with.

Sola Fide is also a selective reading. While faith is most definitely required, and is the basis of all, faith without works is dead.

This could be a long post.  I'll keep it short.

Protestants as a whole:

1}  Reject the Real Presence;  Read St John Chapter 6.  Protestantism follows the non-belief of Judas.
2}  Reject the inerrancy of the WHOLE of Scripture.  They pick and choose which books they like and which they don't they junk. The Canon of Scripture that Christ used is not the same list of books Protestants have used since 1825-1875 when the US and British Bible societies finally "succeeded" in purging from the Prot Bible books used and quoted in the NT.
3}  Affirm personal interpretation of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture.
4}  Reject the teaching authority of Tradition which is taught...in Scripture.
5}  Reject the place of Mary in Scripture and in the life of the Church and as Queen of Heaven as presented in Scripture.
6}  Thru their hundreds of "denominations" reject the unity of the faith Christ gave us.  

Yeah, there's more.

THAT is just one of the many reasons Christ gave us the Church, the only Church, the Catholic Church

LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your name throughout the earth! You have covered the heavens in Your majesty. Because of Your adversaries, You have established a stronghold from the mouths of children and nursing infants, to silence the enemy and avenger (or the avenging fallen angel). When I observe Your heavens, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You would want to remember him?

You made him a little lower than God (or made him lower than the angels, or a god, or a heavenly being in capability and understanding except that of the Son of Man), and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him lord over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet. All of the sheep and oxen, as well as the animals in the wild, the birds of the sky, and the fish of the sea (or and all of the creatures which scuttle), passing through the currents of the seas.

LORD, our Lord, how magnificent is Your Name in all of the earth (or Lord how magnificent is Your Name in all of the places where You rule).

A Psalm and Song of David: Son of Jesse: Son of Obed
Psalm 8
God's Glory: Man's Dignity

I have as much problem with #5's contention about a "Queen of Heaven" as I do the Mormon belief that Jesus and Satan were brothers.

Mary is blessed amoung women but the level of "Queen" would put her on par with Christ Himself. James, who was the Lord's brother wasn't found in a cabbage patch.
Again, I go back to the teachings of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church that if one is confused about an interpretation of the Bible, select the one that elevates God & Christ and debases man the most. Christ sits at the right hand of God and the knee of every descendent of Adam shall bow and every tongue will confess that He is the Messiah. Even the Virgin Mary will do so.  

The Jews were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah due to Daniel's prophecy in Daniel Chapter 9 that it would 490 years from the starting of the rebuilding of the temple in 457BC that the Messiah would be cut off. The Romans taking away from the Jewish people the right to condemn someone to death marked the period that Shiloh(the Messiah, Jesus) had already been born(Genesis 49:10). By Mary conceiving a child by Joseph would put an end to the period of time that a 'virgin' would conceive a child. The destruction of the Temple significance is lost to many Christians today but it held all the genealogy information of the Jewish people. No one from that point onward could prove a claim that they were a descendant of King David. I therefore hold that this was necessary to show the distinctness of Jesus's birth and no one else could fit the parameters put forth by the prophets of olde for the one to be the Messiah as typified by Isaiah 53. Succinctly, I believe Mary conceived children by Joseph to show the distinctness of Jesus and eliminate others from being proclaimed the Messiah. Therefore, only one man could be the Messiah and that is Jesus. Hallelujah and maranatha!

If the Roman Catholic Church so chooses to believe whatever they so choose about the Virgin Mary, then they are free to do so. May God bless them for doing so since I have encountered Protestant 'pastors' that deny the Virgin birth as a myth . I may not agree with their doctrines regarding the Virgin Mary but I am not going to call them non-Christians any more than I disagree with the Pentecostal fascination with the least of gifts, speaking in tongues.

Given the rising tide of paganism and discrimination against Christians of all beliefs, we need to focus on where we do have common ground and stand together for the faith and be ready for His soon return!

<><

Could be a very tall order though?
Seems to be too many trust issues at the present.

I could lay out some Scripture in here about several issues that are being discussed right now that would cause some to tear their robes if you know what I mean.
I will not do this though, because it would only cause further strife and that is not right.

The insistence on the necessity of the pope to render scripture useful to the average Christian makes me wonder why the scriptures are even considered necessary or useful as Paul describes them in 2nd Timothy 3:16. Scripture is not very difficult to understand or interperet unless you're trying to make it say things that it doesn't say. Magisterium is an invention of the Roman church meant to subjugate, not illuminate the Word of God.