Are Protestant claims regarding Scripture superior?

I know the history of the RCC goes back a ways, but does it go back this far....? :

Acts : 7:38
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake
to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles
to give unto us:

Catholic Church in the wilderness ???

 

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, so it goes back as far as he does.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi John,

I asked if you would like to join me for a holy hour and worship our Eucharistic Lord, not if you would join me for communion.

The Eucharist is a dividing factor between Catholics and numerous Protestants of immense proportions. If the Catholic claim is false, practicing Catholics commit idolatry at least once a week. If the Catholic claim is true, then we have Jesus Christ in our churches.

With regards to receiving communion: (1) Communion is a sign of complete unity, so for someone who is not in communion with the Church to receive communion would be a lie, (2) Why would you want to receive what you don't believe? We believe that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ. So, it begs the question.. why would an unbeliever (with regards to the Eucharist) want to partake in what they don't believe?

it is not a compromise on RCC beliefs for a Catholic to take open communion in Christian non-Catholic church.

A Catholic may not receive communion in any other Christian community other than the Eastern Orthodox Churches under particular guidelines.

God bless,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,

I was reading the Q&A section at EWTN.com the other day, and someone asked this question, and the priest who answered said that we shouldn't, but it isn't forbidden (to commune with non-Catholics). The danger comes in worshipping the bread and wine because one might be inclined to believe Jesus is there when he is not, which would be idolatry.

Do you disagree?

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Singer,

Did you glean over my post without understanding the import of what I wrote? I refuse to dialogue with individuals who are unable to listen to me; otherwise, I have no purpose in speaking. I hope you can understand my stance in this regard.

It is my understanding that the word catholicism means "universal" and applied to believers, would mean "universal believers" or all believers

Actually, it comes from kataholos (kata = according to; holos = the whole), which translates literally to "according to the whole". Hence, Catholic designates that ecclesial community, which is united. It does not refer to religious pluralism, and J.N.D. Kelly - the Oxford scholar I quoted - makes this explicitly clear.

As for Matthew 16:18 pertaining to the Catholic Church, the term "Catholic" was never even applied to or associated with the word "church" in the Old or New Testament. Evidence of it only applied in history after 110 A.D.. when Ignatius applied it as a proper noun.

Catholic was not applied as a noun by Ignatius. It was applied as an adjective along with "Church" to designate the true Church. Being ordained by St. Peter and a disciple of St. John, I would say that St. Ignatius has more authority than you, and I will listen to his opinion over your opinion.

It could not have applied in Matthew 16:18 as the Catholic Church did not even exist yet (at the time of Jesus' statement to Peter). This alone would disqualify your various scriptures.

Actually, in this verse, Jesus says that he "will build" not that he is building or that he has already built. The verb is in the future tense.

Again, "church" means "believers" and makes much sense when read with that in mind.

No, "church" does not mean "believers"; it literally translates to "assembly".

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Grant,

Yes I disagree.

Visit this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=18&number=268614

God bless,

Carson

 

(Quoted from Grace Saves)

"The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, so it goes back as far as he does."

*Presumptuous in the least; but if it trips your trigger...............!!!

P.S. God created iron ore, so that proves that there were Ford Crown Victorias in Moses' time.

 

Your anology is not even close to working. Nice try at sarcasm, though.

God bless,

Grant

 

Yeah, that's the same post I was talking about. My memory must be slipping.

God bless,

Grant

 

Did you glean over my post without understanding the import of what I wrote? I refuse to
dialogue with individuals who are unable to listen to me; otherwise, I have no purpose in speaking. I hope you can understand my stance in this regard. (C)

(S) I can understand self worth and pride of life. Most instances are an abomination to the Lord; whereas we hinge upon the possibility hereabout. Listen is one thing....believe is another !!

Actually, it comes from kataholos (kata = according to; holos = the whole), which
translates literally to "according to the whole". Hence, Catholic designates that ecclesial community, which is united. It does not refer to religious pluralism, and J.N.D. Kelly - the Oxford scholar I quoted - makes this explicitly clear. (C)

(S) Whole...Yes...Whole Body of Believers (church). To deny would be to say that non-Catholic believers are not believers.

"According to the whole" refers to the whole body of believers.

Actually, in this verse, Jesus says that he "will build" not that he is building or that he has
already built. The verb is in the future tense. (C)

(S) Our salvation was provided from the foundations of the world...way before anyone used the term" Catholic." For your application.....it would make sense to use the term "will build" around faith instead of a worldly organization.

No, "church" does not mean "believers"; it literally translates to "assembly".(C)
(S) Yes, Assembly of believers ...... Otherwise known as the "Church".

 

" "The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, so it goes back as far as he does."

You may be forgetting that Christ was around "from the foundations of the world" and the
Catholic Church was not.

I was quoting Catholic material in the date of 110 AD when Ignatius applied a capital C to the term meaning ''body of believers'' (church). I'm not seeing consistency here.

 

You're taking both Carson's and my statements completely out of context. You know good and well what I meant.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hi Singer,

Whole...Yes...Whole Body of Believers (church). To deny would be to say that non-Catholic believers are not believers.

I refer you again to the renowned Oxford historian J.N.D. Kelly's statement as quoted above. Belief implies two things: (1) the deposit of faith, which is believed - e.g. I believe "in" the Trinity, and (2) the person to which faith adheres - e.g. I follow God's will. The Church delivers the doctrinal truth that satisfies #1 (i.e. the Bible came from the Catholic Church - that is, if you know your history) and administers the sacraments, which makes #2 possible.


Our salvation was provided from the foundations of the world...way before anyone used the term" Catholic." For your application.....it would make sense to use the term "will build" around faith instead of a worldly organization.

Twelve men gathered around their rabbi, Jesus. The scandal, Singer, is that these thirteen men formed a worldly organization, and it's been growing ever since.. built upon the faith of Peter.

Yes, Assembly of believers ...... Otherwise known as the "Church".

I agree.

God bless,

Carson

 

"The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, so it goes back as far as he does."

(This would be an example of "out of context".)

i.e. the Bible came from the Catholic Church - that is, if you know your history)

(This would be too).

No, Carson, the Bible came from God (the Inspired word of God). The RCC did not 'go back' as far as Christ and the RCC did not 'go back' as far as the founding of scripture. This is getting ridiculous. That would be equal to a little boy saying that his teacher wrote all the text books.

Twelve men gathered around their rabbi, Jesus. The scandal, Singer, is that these thirteen men formed a worldly organization, and it's been growing ever since.. built upon the faith of Peter.

There's no scandal except that offered by the RCC. No other denomination suggests to be exclusive in the appointment of administering the teachings of Jesus.

The faith of Protestants exceeds Peter and whatever role he played. Paul rebuked Peter. Maybe Paul should be the subject of your faith.

Yes, Assembly of believers ...... Otherwise known as the "Church" Yes, I agree .

Yes and that's ALL they were. No one was referred to as a Catholic at that time.
It's grossly preposterous to claim that all pre-Catholic believers were also Catholic. When
the term DID arrive, it only meant "universal" and was spelled with a small 'c'. (catholic)

 

From the Dictionary .........

One entry found for catholic.
Entry Word: catholic
Function: adjective
Text: 1
Synonyms UNIVERSAL 2, cosmic, cosmopolitan, ecumenical, global,
planetary, worldwide
Related Word comprehensive, inclusive; general, generic,
indeterminate; extensive, large-scale

Who had the right to steal a term from history, name their denomination the same thing and then claim historical and Godly superiority ...and where is the basis for that in Scripture..? In todays world of Copyright Law...this would be a sure jail sentence and the rightful defaming of the offender

 

Well, Carson, that explains it. We belong to different churches. Yours is founded on the faith of Peter. Mine is founded on the person of Jesus Christ.

Your rock is Peter, and mine is Jesus.

No wonder there are so many differences!

 

"You are Kephas (rock) and on this Kephas (rock) I will build my church."

Jesus built HIS church on that Kephas (Cephas = Peter). It's not my church. It's not the Pope's church. It is His Church. He built it on the faith and the person He named Rock. He did not build it on a book of stories and letters. The Church He built is the pillar and foundation of truth.

"All Scripture is profitable..." Yes, however, the Church that Jesus built on Kephas is the is the pillar and foundation of truth.

And according to the "All Scripture is profitable..." statement in the Bible, what is Scripture profitable for? So that we might be equipped to do good works.

So the Bible says that Scripture is profitable to enable us to do good works but that the Church, which Jesus founded and built on Peter, is the pillar and foundation of truth.

At least that's how I see it.

 

You're not listening, and you're again taking me out of context. The first time I was referring to Jesus after He came in the flesh, and simple logic should have let you know that I was referring to that, since it makes no sense to claim that a Church existed before the world existed. You were trying to make me look foolish for no good reason. You can disagree and not try to make a fool of me.

So God actually, Himself, put the words down on paper? Last I checked, he employed faithful followers to write down His most precious Word. And if they were believers, they were in the Church, for the Church was started as soon as Jesus ascended into Heaven, and the NT Scriptures were not written until some years after that. Therefore, members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church produced the Scriptures, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What Carson said was not invalid.

According to your false interpretation of history, sure.

Another bad analogy that doesn't hold up. That is not an equal scenario, because no one person in the Catholic Church claims he or she wrote Scriptures. The Church says that members of the Church wrote it. What would be an equal analogy would be a teacher stating that some of her fellow colleagues wrote the textbooks.

Perhaps not, but many don't have a problem condemning different teachings, and some go as far as to damn to hell members of other denominations, something the Catholic Church does not do.

That first line makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't know you were capable of judging someone else's faith, especially a close disciple of Jesus Christ. Second, the Paul-rebuking-Peter story has been talked about many times before, and Catholics have a solid stance on that issue. If you want to know more about it, do a search; it's been discussed countless times.

Nor does it matter; we didn't pick Peter as the Pope; Christ chose him. Frankly, I trust Jesus' judgement better than yours.

They weren't referred to as Baptists or Methodists or Lutherans or Calvinits or anything else either, but you don't see a problem naming your church as such. This argument is a dead end.

It's not wrong at all; the Church hasn't changed. She is one in the same as she alwasy was. At some point in history, she inherited a name, meaning "universal," because she is the true Church of God everywhere in the world.

God bless,

Grant

 

Please tell me this is inteded to be humorous.