When you say the word "Catholic", obviously the first things that pop in the mind are "The Pope of Rome", Roman Catholic", "the Virgin Mary", and a few other things. There seems to be a problem with this however, seeing that this is not actually "Catholic", but the "Roman Catholic Church".

 

Therefore Clergy and Laity, I would like to ask you "What does it mean to be Catholic?"

 

-are you familiar with where the word came from?

-are you familiar with who claims the title Catholic today?

-are you familiar with who can/should authentically be considered Catholic?

-what exactly is believed by Catholics about God?

-what exactly is believed about the blessed virgin Mary?

-what does the term "the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" mean?

-did the first Protestants stop considering themselves to be Catholic? Why or why not?

 

No more assumptions, guessing, or prejudice. Since we claim to be Christians, lets hit the hard facts about this subject that was apart of Christianity for 2,000 years.

 

Views: 274

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You cannot say that it was not inspired. Say what you really mean, that it wasn't "written within the texts of the Bible", or that it wasn't canonized. To say that it was uninspired is to say that you examined it, prayed on it, studied it, and found that it was not influenced by the Spirit of God.

 

As for Joshua, yes he did say that. However, Joshua also spoke words that were not found in the Torah, and his own words became part of the Scriptures, thus his own Oral Tradition was canonized. If we were to go strictly by your theory, the ONLY thing that we are to adhere to was the Law of Moses and the exact words of Christ Jesus. From an OT standpoint, "Sola Scriptura" is a modern-day version of "the leaven of the Sadducees", for they felt and taught the same way you did concerning the authority of the Scriptures and the Oral Tradition. 

Scripture can concretely prove such, but the problem is your perception of what the Scriptures actually say. You take Paul' s words, which say "All Scripture is given.." to mean "ONLY Scripture is given...", and that not what he said or implied at all. The Apostle Paul tells the Church of Corinth, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1st Corinthians 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonian Church, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2nd Thessalonians 3:6). 


To make sure that the Apostolic Tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the Apostles, Paul told his disciple Apostle Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” according to 2nd  Timothy 2:2. In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the Apostles and guarded them scrupulously. Like our elder brethren of Judaism, the Christian Church believed in and still believes in the Oral Traditions passed down by the holy Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Christ fulfills the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene". This prophecy is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament; according to the Gospel of Matthew, Christ Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the leaders of Israel and finally the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament. These demonstrate that the Christ and His Apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

And explain what happened at the East-West Schism. It is said that the churches that remained in communion with the Holy Roman See were considered Catholic. And the Eastern Churches were considered Orthodox. How does this fit in your view of Cathoilic?

Both were "Catholic", but both weren't following "Orthodoxy" and "Orthopraxy". The Church of Rome deviated from their position, thus stepping out of bounds. Can I say that Christ completely left Rome at that time? No, not at all. Rome continued to consider the Eastern Church Catholic, but silently. They openly declared the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome as validly being Catholic. They silently acknowledged the Eastern Churches as being Catholic for centuries. This became open when they (The Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople) lifted their mutual anathema against each other. The Orthodox Churches also acknowledged themselves as being Catholic, but have also held that Rome has deviated from the faith, and therefore cannot call them orthodox. 

If we wanted to go further into the subject of Oral Tradition, we can look at Jude's epistle and easily see much oral Tradition used. We all know that Apostle Jude quoted the Book of Enoch, a book that was used by virtually all the Jews (Christ and His Apostles included), but was not canonized by them (except for one group of Orthodox Jews). It was regarded as being apart of their Oral Tradition, yet Jude quoted from it clearly. He also spoke about the dispute between Satan and Michael the Archangel over the body of Moses. This is found NO WHERE in the Bible at all. This dispute is actually found in one of their deuterocanonical writings, being apart of their ancient oral tradition that also found its way to being written down for the ability to pass the story along better.

We can look at Apostle Paul speak about Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses. The problem is that the OT never mentioned these two by name. These names are given and passed down by Jewish Oral Tradition.

So Rev. Watson, you said that there is no Scripture to prove this, but I have shown a number of Scriptures that prove this. 

If you really read my post, you would understand that I have no problem with the authority of Scripture. You think me saying "Scripture only is heretical" is me having a problem with Scripture, and that couldn't be any further from the truth. In fact, I proved my point by using the Scriptures and nothing else, so how then do I have a problem with the authority of Scripture? I already know that you stand for the "Five Solas", and I know that many others agree with you 100%, but the difference with me and most others (and quite possibly you as well) is this:

-I understand that the Church never agreed to "Sola Scriptura" because even the Scriptures don't promote Sola Scriptura. 

-I understand that the Church never agreed to "Sola Fide", because the many who gave you this doctrine, Rev. Martin Luther, was against any decree that the Roman Catholic Church had, and that included good works demonstrating you faith. He even wanted to take the Book of James out of the Bible because he felt that James contradicted Paul by saying "Faith without works is dead". THAT is the heart of his doctrine of Sola Fide. If you don't believe me, then look at the Lutheran Church, who originated this doctrine. They who held to this more than most, have officially agreed with the Roman Catholic Church on the matter of Faith and works, finally standing still long enough to recognize and agree that "Faith without works is dead". 

-I understand that the Church never agreed to "Solus Christus" because it opened the door to debates about "Eternal Salvation", and "Irresistible Grace", things that Christianity NEVER adhered to before hand. Its is your responsibility to accept Him as the Lord of all and acknowledge Him as your Savior. Therefore, it is NOT just Christ alone, but you are very active in this. Also, many take "Solus Christus" and run with it to the point of ignoring the Minister's God-given authority to judge the Church even here on Earth, the power to forgive sin, and the power to excommunicate from the body of Christ, ALL found within the Scriptures and ALL spoken by the Lord Himself and His Apostles. 

I stand firmly on "the Primacy of Scripture", as the Church always did and the nation of Israel did before her. 

You have twisted the context of their meaning! Moses told us that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. QUESTION: Was EVERY WORD that proceeded out of God's mouth recorded on the pages of Scripture? If you believe that, then you have a very small and short-winded god. I can and will address this, but first you have to answer to a post of mine that you danced around. I would appreciate a direct address of the Scripture references I used before please. I will repost it so you can reply properly:

 

If we wanted to go further into the subject of Oral Tradition, we can look at Jude's epistle and easily see much oral Tradition used. We all know that Apostle Jude quoted the Book of Enoch, a book that was used by virtually all the Jews (Christ and His Apostles included), but was not canonized by them (except for one group of Orthodox Jews). It was regarded as being apart of their Oral Tradition, yet Jude quoted from it clearly. He also spoke about the dispute between Satan and Michael the Archangel over the body of Moses. This is found NO WHERE in the Bible at all. This dispute is actually found in one of their deuterocanonical writings, being apart of their ancient oral tradition that also found its way to being written down for the ability to pass the story along better.

We can look at Apostle Paul speak about Jannes and Jambres, who withstood Moses. The problem is that the OT never mentioned these two by name. These names are given and passed down by Jewish Oral Tradition.

 

Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” -2nd Timothy 1:13 
Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” -Hebrews 2:1 
I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you (Gaius) soon, and we will talk together face to face” -3rd John 13

 

 The Apostle Paul tells the Church of Corinth, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1st Corinthians 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonian Church, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2ndThessalonians 3:6). 


To make sure that the Apostolic Tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the Apostles, Paul told his disciple Apostle Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” according to 2nd  Timothy 2:2. In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach, which is Apostolic Succssion!
  

So Rev. Watson, you said that there is no Scripture to prove this, but I have shown a number of Scriptures that prove this.

You made a statement yesterday that I didn't respond to (computer problems). I would like to tackle that right now and address the many errors stated bit by bit:

 

Your Said: "The Apostolic tradition was not passed down by anyone."

My Reply: Says who? Your study of Church History is proving to be lacking if you say that. Have you ignored the words of the first generation of Apostolic Fathers, those who came directly after the Apostles? If you don't care about them, then what about all the Scriptures that I posted concerning Apostolic Tradition? Did you at least read them?

 

You Said: "There are no modern day Apostles. The Apostles have completed their work, because their work was needed to begin the church and not to continue the church. Ephesians 2:20 makes it concretely clear: "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone (Greek: capstone). You are already fully aware of my argument on this, and I have a thread dedicated to it. There is no such thing as Apostolic succession, and you know it. None of the Apostles, including Paul, appointed successors upon their deaths. This fact, in and of itself, cannot be refuted. No where in the Bible does it state that they did so."

My Reply: Absense of mention does not mean absense of presence. The every move and word of the Apostles was not recorded in the NT. To think in such a manner is simply ridiculous. Lets test this theory out with simple matters: where did Thomas go to preach the Gospel? Where did Andrew get sent off to? What were all of the Churches that Peter planted and governed? You can't answer that going strictly by Scripture, can you? In fact, according to your theory, if it didn't happen in the Bible, it didn't happen at all! So by going "Sola Scriptura", you have little clue as to what the Apostles did at all!

 

You Said: "Tell me, do you meet the qualifications of an Apostle? Were you an eyewitness to the Resurrected Jesus? The fact that an Apostle had to have seen the risen Lord with his own eyes is indicated in Acts 1:22, where Peter said that person to replace Judas "must become with us a witness to his resurrection." Apostle Greene, you have never, ever, witnessed the Resurrected Jesus in light of Acts 1:22; John 15:27, or have you? 

Moreover, it was to "the Apostles whom He had chosen" that "he presented Himself alive after His passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days" (Acts 1:2-3; 4:33). I know for a fact that you were NOT there! Were you specifically commissioned by Christ as an Apostle? Seriously."

My Reply: I answered this question many times before, and one of those times being presented by you in fact. For the sake of clarity, I'll answer it again. Yes, I do in fact meet the requirements of Apostleship, because yes, I DID in fact meet face-to-face with the Risen Lord before. The first time I seen Him was the first day of my salvation, and He appeared to me 3 days straight  to speak to me and introduce the Scriptures to me while I was in prison on 23 hour lock-down, desiring to leave the gang life. It was He alone that came to me and brought the salvation message to me, proving that He was real because of the specific prayer that I gave. The next and last time was 2 years later to encourage me to move forward. I know when one says such, almost automatically you will say 1) "its a lie!", or 2) "it wasn't Jesus, but Satan coming in the form of an angel of light", or 3) "you're crazy". Well, whether you believe me or not is on you. I didn't tell you this to try to convince you, I told you this to testify of what truly happened to me. Furthermore, miraculous events have followed me from that day on.

 

 

You Said: "I already know that you must go extra-Biblical on me in order to substantiate Apostolic succession because you have done this many times before, but I stand by the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD ALONE. My God, even the names of believers are written in a book (Revelation 20:15; 13:8; 21:27). He who has an ear, let him hear."
My Reply: Are you serious?? Apostolic Succession is a historic subject, therefore ANY Church Scholar/Historian would have to go extra-biblical to either prove or refute that subject! However, such CAN be proven by the Scriptures. Just because I can and will go and use materials that you don't regard doesn't mean that I wont use the Bible. For some odd reason you have the idea that I dont use or regard the Bible trapped in your mind. When I do use the Scriptures, both OT and NT, to prove my point, then what?

RSS

© 2022   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service