Why I could personally never chose to be Catholic

[epostle1]

If I should in all faith and trust, kneel before my Maker and ask for a fish, what will He give me? If I should ask for wisdom, what will He give me? If I ask for His Spirit, what will He give me? If I ask to be led into all truth, what will He give me? Those who are deceived are those who are NOT in my position. They rely on man. They kneel before God asking for wisdom, then ask man what he thinks. They kneel and ask God for truth, then go to their priest and ask what he thinks. Then they attack others who sought God and found peace and safety and truth in Him. They put their 'church' above God. Then judge and condemn the thoughts and minds and motives of those that disagree with their 'church'...their 'church' has become their god.

Who would that be? We agree on many things but you guys are too rebellious to agree with much of anything.

And don't bother to name all the crazies who have 'claimed' to hear from God and led people to suicide etc. That is NOT what I am talking about, and you know it. And as for Matthew 18:17, are you suggesting we take a matter to all 2 bllion people? Common sense Mary dictates we take it to our local congregation. And the church, any church, is only a pillar of truth if she agrees to scripture.

Bible alone theology is not found anywhere in scripture

I asked BOL on another thread for the RCC's scriptural justification for Sunday sacredness. I would ask you Mary the same.

There is a list of scriptures below that you will ignore anyway

Other than the excuse of taking the law into their own hands claiming "all authority", what justification was there for the RCC to change the ten commandments in her catechisms?

That lie is exposed below.
How long have you been in a sabbatarian cult and what year was it founded? It won't be able to trace its doctrines before the 18th century so why should anyone take you seriously?
From the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday as the primary day of worship was done BY THE APOSTLES, with plenty of supporting evidence. And there was never a change in the 10 commandments, that is a myth produced by sabbatarian CULTS.
Sunday worship, scripture
Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church, not in the life of bizarre cults 18 centuries later.

Acts 20:7 – this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 – Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 – Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 – we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 – regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Heb. 7:12 – when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Rev 1:10 – John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.
Man made cults don't know what "first day of the week" means.

On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”
Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).

“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.”
Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).

But you have nothing to do with the church of 110 AD.

false charge of changing the 10 Commandments:
“NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV etc. have all Gods Commandments intact. HOWEVER, the Catholic Catechism has totally deleted the 2nd commandment, and split the 10th into 2 to make up 10 commandments. They CHANGED Gods Law!!!!”

Now let us just see who really are the ‘they’ who ‘CHANGED God’s Law’…

Protestant sources of their charges that the Catholic Church changed the Ten Commandments…

1. KJV…..first appeared on the scene in 1611, a product of Protestantism.
2. NIV…..first appeared on the scene in 1978.
3. NKJV…first appeared on the scene in 1982.
4. RSV…..first appeared on the scene in 1946

Catholic sources of our defense to the baseless charges of Catholics changing the Ten Commandments…

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) appeared on the scene in 1992.
   It lists the Ten Commandments as they were before Christ.
2. NJB…first appeared on the scene in 1985. The NJB supports the CCC.
3. NAB…first appeared on the scene in 1970. The NAB supports the CCC.
4. JB……first appeared on the scene in 1966. The JB supports the CCC.
5. RSV-CE…first appeared on the scene in 1965. The RSV-CE supports the CCC.
6. NCE…first appeared on the scene in 1954. The NCE supports the CCC.
7. CE…first appeared on the scene in 1948. The CE (Confraternity Edition) supports the CCC.
8. Challoner-Rheims…first appeared on the scene in 1749. The Challoner-Rheims supports the CCC.
9. Douay-Rheims…first appeared on the scene in 1592-1609. The Douay-Rheims supports the CCC.
   Note that the date for this Bible predates any Protestant Bible by at least 2 years.
10. The Latin Vulgate…first appeared on the scene in 404. The Latin Vulgate supports the CCC.
    Note that the date for this Bible predates any Protestant Bible by over 1200 years.
11. The Septuagint…first appeared on the scene about 148 B.C. This is the Bible that was used by the Apostles.
    The Septuagint supports the CCC. Note that the date for this Bible predates any Protestant Bible by over 1700 years.

Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to prove that the Ten Commandments could not possibly have been changed by the Catholic Church which did not even exist for almost 200 years after the Septuagint was written. Add to that the fact that ALL Catholic Bibles, ALL the way back to 148 B.C.,are in agreement, and yet Protestant Bibles which did not even appear on the scene until 1611, list the commandments in the ‘different’ order.

So…WHO really did change the Ten Commandments?

Please, if you are going to make charges against the Catholic Church,then do it with real evidence (if you can find any) and not by personal opinions.

We are all looking for the truth and not trumped up charges.

 

[epostle1]

Again, here is that ridiculous quote we got from that Seventh-day Adventist (Brakelite):

“NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV etc. have all Gods Commandments intact. HOWEVER, the Catholic Catechism has totally deleted the 2nd commandment, and split the 10th into 2 to make up 10 commandments. They CHANGED Gods Law!!!!”

Actually, that is far from true. The 2nd commandment was not deleted – it’s still very much there. The words that the Protestants call the 2nd commandment, are found in the first commandment of the Catholics. Let me go into a bit more detail here. A quick word before that – go and look at your 1st commandment – it says “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me.” That command to have no other gods includes, obviously, carved gods, painted gods. Why must Protestants split this up into 2 commandments ? I’ll tell you why.

If you want to split up the commandments into the smallest commandments possible, there are at least 11 commandments:

1. No other gods.
2. No idols.
3. No blasphemy.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.
5. Honour your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie.
10. Do not covet your neighbour’s wife.*
11. Do not cover your neighbour’s goods.*

Logically 10 and 11 can be fused into one commandment – “Do not covet.” Logically 1 and 2 can be fused into one commandment – “no false gods, including idol gods which are also false gods.”

*(10 and 11 are joined together in Exodus, but listed separately in Deuteronomy.)

Here is a quotation from the KJV showing exactly how Catholics divide up the commandments:

Commandment #1
Exod 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exod 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exod 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exod 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exod 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Commandment #2
Exod 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Commandment #3
Exod 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

So we can also have 11 commandments, or 9 commandments. It is interesting to note that the number 10 was given in the Bible, but not precisely which words went with each number. The Jews used a version of the commandments that listed 10 and 11 together, while the early Christians chose to use a different list used by another Jewish minority. Both lists came from Judaism, the one was just more popular than the other. Both, however, contained the full text of the commandments, not leaving any out.

Later the Catholic Church was divided on the issue. Origen used the “Protestant” set, while Augustine favoured the “Catholic” set. Mainstream Judaism even adopted their own different numbering system not used by Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants. Everyone kept the same commandments, though.

Later, the Catholic Church decided to adopt BOTH versions as official versions, and that is still the case today … something not many people know, but which can be verified by doing research into the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. To simplify things, it is the western (Latin) part of the Catholic Church that uses the “Catholic” or “Western” ten commandments, and the eastern part of the Catholic Church that uses the “Protestant” or “Eastern” ten commandments … long before any Protestants came along. Both parts of the Catholic Church – east and west – fall under the authority of the pope – they are one denomination, although different patriarchates. It is thus only in the west that Protestants have become upset by the different order of the ten commandments. In the east, Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox use exactly the same sequence of commandments !!!

So, no, we did not change God’s law, we just list the wording differently to what you do. And also, not all Catholics do that. Many Catholics use EXACTLY the same ten commandments as you Adventists and Protestants do! In fact, Martin Luther, and most Lutherans today, use the same numbering system as Catholics in the west!

Not one of the ten commandments has been edited, rejected, or changed by the Catholic Church. However, for the sake of making memorisation of the crux of the commandment easier, the longer ones have been abbreviated. I have seen SDA listings of the 10 commandments, including the 4th one – most of them read “Keep the Sabbath day holy” or something like that. They do NOT list the full 4th commandment, so it is very unfair and hypocritical to expect the RCC to do what is not expected of Brakelite's rebellious cult.
Just Who Did Change The Ten Commandments?

 

[epostle1]

epostle1,
re: "You can be eliminated for following man made traditions."

So you're saying that scripture is man made tradition? And what might those man made traditions be?

I really don't like being misquoted and misrepresented. That's two.

 

[brakelite]

“NIV, KJV, NKJV, RSV etc. have all Gods Commandments intact. HOWEVER, the Catholic Catechism has totally deleted the 2nd commandment, and split the 10th into 2 to make up 10 commandments. They CHANGED Gods Law!!!!”

Oh, that is not all they did epostle and you are conveniently ignoring that. The Catholic church changed the 4th commandment didn't they, without any authority or Biblical justification for doing so.

 

[rstrats]

epostle1,
re: "I really don't like being misquoted and misrepresented."

Where did I misquote you?

 

[epostle1]

If you are referring to the 2 billion Catholics around the world yes, they are relying on their church for salvation, with of course some exceptions.
And of course so are some protestants doing likewise. But you cleverly diverted my reply and refused to commit yourself to an answer to the main thrust of my post by throwing it back at me. Care to try again?
If I should in all faith and trust, kneel before my Maker and ask for a fish, what will He give me? If I should ask for wisdom, what will He give me? If I ask for His Spirit, what will He give me? If I ask to be led into all truth, what will He give me?

I answered your false charges on Saturday only worship, and your false charges on changing the 10 Commandments. TWICE. Followed by no response. So why should I answer your question? It has little or nothing to do with the context of Matthew 7:9-12 from where the bulk of your question came; I am not buying into your manipulation. Do you really think all you have to do to become a great prophet is ask for it?
30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity. https://www.catholicfidelity.com/ap...-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-by-dave-armstrong/
You may not admit it, but you have SDA written all over your posts.
https://www.catholicfidelity.com/ap...-reasons-why-i-am-catholic-by-dave-armstrong/

 

[epostle1]

epostle1,
re: "I really don't like being misquoted and misrepresented."

Where did I misquote you?

"So you're saying that scripture is man made tradition? And what might those man made traditions be?"
That is a straw man fallacy, because I never said such a thing, therefore you misquote me, and you misrepresent me, the standard anti-Catholic reply to just about everything. And you wonder where you misquoted me. <sigh>

 

[epostle1]

Oh, that is not all they did epostle and you are conveniently ignoring that. The Catholic church changed the 4th commandment didn't they, without any authority or Biblical justification for doing so.

The 4th Commmandment has never changed, it's still there. You are conveniently inventing a lie. You can't even honor Jesus' mother because of your rigid pharisee-ism so who are you to lecture us about the 4th Commandment? That your SDA buddies don't print the whole thing??? Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The fourth commandment

 

[rstrats]

epostle1,
re: "That is a straw man fallacy, because I never said such a thing..."

I didn't say you did. If you look really, really close you'll notice a question mark at the end of my sentence.

Brakelite had written that he would be interested in the Cathechism's scriptural justification for the sacredness of Sunday. You responded with a list of scriptural references and names. I responded to them by commenting on each one.

In response to those comments you said that I could be eliminated for following man made traditions.

That statement confused me since I had only commented on the scriptures and names that you had provided.

I still don't know to what man made traditions you were referring.

 

[epostle1]

epostle1,
re: "That is a straw man fallacy, because I never said such a thing..."

I didn't say you did. If you look really, really close you'll notice a question mark at the end of my sentence.

Brakelite had written that he would be interested in the Cathechism's scriptural justification for the sacredness of Sunday. You responded with a list of scriptural references and names. I responded to them by commenting on each one.

In response to those comments you said that I could be eliminated for following man made traditions.

That statement confused me since I had only commented on the scriptures and names that you had provided.

I still don't know to what man made traditions you were referring.

Anybody can make a completely ridiculous fallacious comment by placing a question mark at the end.
The #1 man made tradition by anti-Catholics is the blind refusal to accept the proper biblical definition of Sacred Tradition...that's not you, is it rstrats?

 

[rstrats]

epostle1,
re: "The #1 man made tradition by anti-Catholics is the blind refusal to accept the proper biblical definition of Sacred Tradition..."

I'm pretty sure braklite was asking for written scripture in the Holy Bible that teaches the sacredness of the 1st day of the week. The scriptures that you provided do not do that. If you think they do, how about showing where they do that?

 

[epostle1]

• This reflects a total misunderstanding of the Early Church Fathers, who they were, and how they contributed to the development of the Church. We know they are not scripture, no one ever said they were. They give us glimpses of the life and thought of the times they were in, and there is nothing in scripture that says all beliefs, practices, and devotions must be found explicitly in scripture. That is a man made tradition. Besides, it was the ECF that agreed on what was scripture and what was not. To eliminate them is contradictory and self defeating. BTW, it was Justin Martyr who was the first to identify all 4 gospels in 120 AD, and you want to eliminate him???

Ps 118:24 and 1 Cor 10:11 can be eliminated since nothing is said with reagard to the first day of the week.

Just because something is not explicit (enough for you) does not mean it is non-existent. Sunday is known throughout 99% of Christendom as the day the Lord has made. Get over yourself.

Mt 28:1, Mk 16:1, Mk 16:2, Lk 24:1, Jn 20:1 and 1 Cor 16:2 can be eliminated since nothing is said about anyone observing the first day of the week for the purpose of rest and worship.

Again, they don't have to make explicit mention. You are bible-worshipping and not applying exegesis or hermenutics.

Col 2:16 can be eliminated since nothing is said about meeting on the first day of the week for the purpose of rest and worship.

Rev 1:10 can be eliminated since nothing is said about the first day of the week.

Acts 20:7 - The Acts reference has them together very likely because Paul happened to be in town and he wanted to talk to them before he had to leave again. The "breaking of bread" could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a religious service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.
But even if the "breaking of bread mentioned" always did refer to the Lord’s Supper, it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first (day) because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.

What you are saying is they couldn't do both. That's not what E.W. Bullinger is saying...not at all.

And actually, as far as scripture is concerned, there are only two times mentioned with regard to anybody getting together on the first (day) of the week - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7. There is never any mention of them ever again being together on the first.

Only 2 times??? Wouldn't once be enough???

The John reference has them together in a closed room after the crucifixion because they were afraid of their fellow Jews. Nothing is said about a worship service or day of rest.

Because it had not yet been developed.

And it couldn't have been in recognition of the resurrection because at that time they didn't even believe that the resurrection had taken place.

Do you always read scripture in time warps?

There simply is no scripture that says that the first day of the week is to be set aside for a day of rest and worship.

You must be another blind cultist. SDA, or JW. Not sure which.

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Acts 20:7 – this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the *principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

1 Cor. 16:2 – Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the *primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Col. 2:16-17 – Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”

2 Thess. 2:15 – we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Heb. 4:8-9 – regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.

**principle day, primary day does not mean the only day.

Rev. 1:10 – John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

"The [Trinity] can be proven from Scripture, indeed (material sufficiency), but Scripture Alone as a principle was not formally sufficient to prevent the Arian crisis from occurring. In other words, the decisive factor in these controversies was the appeal to apostolic succession and Tradition, which showed that the Church had always been trinitarian."
Objectors to Sunday worship fall into the same trap. They have no tradition to rely on for stability. Like the JW's and the SDA's.[/QUOTE]

 

[epostle1]

epostle1,
re: "The #1 man made tradition by anti-Catholics is the blind refusal to accept the proper biblical definition of Sacred Tradition..."

I'm pretty sure braklite was asking for written scripture in the Holy Bible that teaches the sacredness of the 1st day of the week. The scriptures that you provided do not do that. If you think they do, how about showing where they do that?

The scripture citations that I provided do that. I am not going to spoon feed you or brakelite. Look up the verses yourself and stop being so lazy. I'm not going to repeat myself 4 times. I can't make the blind see.

Introduction to Trinitarian Theology
“Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

-Matt. 28:19

"I have attempted not so much to speak with authority of things that I know, as to seek to know them by speaking about them with reverence.”

-St. Augustine, De Trinitate, I v. 8

The Central Mystery of the Christian Faith

The Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith, the truth from which all other truths proceed. The sending of the Son of God by the Father for the redemption of mankind and the indwelling of the Spirit in individual Christians (and in the Church corporately) are not understandable apart from the truth that God is One Divine Being existing in Three Persons: the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. This truth, then, is the fundamental revelation of the New Covenant, the highest doctrine in the hierarchy of revealed truth and the basic, distinctive characteristic of traditional, historic Christianity.

The Mystery of the Trinity

In theology, the Trinity is said to be a mystery. According to the First Vatican Council, a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, 4). It does not contradict reason, but goes beyond it. Thus, even though the mystery of the Trinity may be rational and coherent, it cannot fully be grasped by our understanding; part of it will always remain mysterious. The Trinity, since it pertains to the very life of God Himself, is the central mystery of the Christian faith (CCC 261).

Nevertheless, we can use analogies and figures to help us understand this mystery. However, even if certain analogies help us to better understand what God is, we have to remember the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council, that “between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them” (Constitutions of Lateran IV, 2). Ultimately, because God is utterly unique, any analogy we invent to describe Him will fall far short of His reality.

Thus, humility is always needed when speaking of the Trinity, for we speak of the very life and being of God Himself.

The Trinity In Scripture

The Trinity is not formally defined or explained in Scripture; however, Christians have always seen the Trinity taught implicitly in several biblical passages. For example, John 1:1, in which it states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This passage clearly states that the Word of God, while being God Himself, is also “with God.” Many other passages have been brought forward that support the Church’s traditional Trinitarian approach:

Gen. 1:26
Gen. 16:7-13
Ex. 3:2-14
Ps. 2:7
Ps. 110
Prov. 8
Wis. 7-8
Isa. 11:2
Ezk. 11:5
Matt. 28:19
Luke 3:22
John 8:58
John 10:33
2 Cor. 13:14
Eph, 4:4-6
Php. 2:1-2
Php. 2:9-11
1 John 5:7

Dogmatic Definitions

The Church has dogmatically defined the mystery of the Trinity many times. From the most ancient days of Christianity, Trinitarian faith was expressed in the Apostles’ Creed; the Didache (c. 70 AD) says baptism was administered “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

The most famous definition was at the Council of Nicaea (325), whose definition was meant as explaining the equality of the Father with the Son. The Nicene Creed, which we recite at Sunday Masses, states that the Son is “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

The Nicene definition was restated at the Council of Constantinople (381) and further defined at the subsequent regional councils at Toledo in the 5th-7th centuries, which were aimed at defining the orthodox Faith against the Arians, who denied the equality of the Father with the Son.

The Creed of St. Athanasius, also called to Quicumque Vult, was the most common formulation of Trinitarian faith used in the Middle Ages. It stated:

“And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite.”

So we see that from the patristic era going into the Middle Ages, a standard formulation of the Trinity as one God in Three Persons was common. This formulation would be restated at subsequent Councils right up to the Second Vatican Council. The Catechism of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Trinity can be found in paragraphs 232-267.

Introduction to Trinitarian Theology

 

[epostle1]

62. Classical Protestantism had a deficient view of the Fall of Man, thinking that the result was “total depravity.” According to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Calvinists, man could only do evil of his own volition, and had no free will to do good. He now has a “sin nature.” Catholicism believes that, in a mysterious way, man cooperates with the grace which always originates from God and precedes all good actions. In Catholicism, man’s nature still retains some good, although he has a propensity to sin (“concupiscence”).

63. Classical Protestantism, and Calvinism today, comes perilously close to making God the author of evil. He supposedly wills that men do evil and violate His precepts without having any free will to do so.

64. Accordingly (man having no free will), in classical Protestant and Calvinist thought, God predestines men to hell, although they had no choice or say in the matter all along.

Read more at 150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic

65. Classical Protestantism and Calvinism, teach falsely that Jesus died only for the elect (i.e., those who will make it to heaven).

66. Classical Protestantism (especially Luther), and Calvinism, deny natural theology, and tend to dichotomize reason against God and faith, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 12:28; Lk 10:27; Jn 20:24-9; Acts 1:3; 17:2,17,22-34; 19:8). The best Protestant apologists today simply hearken back to the Catholic heritage of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many other great thinkers.

67. Pentecostal or charismatic Protestantism strongly tend to place much too high an emphasis on spiritual experience, not balancing it properly with reason, the Bible, and Tradition (including the authority of the Church to pronounce on the validity of “private revelations”).

68. Other Protestants (e.g., many Baptists) deny that spiritual gifts such as healing are present in the current age (supposedly they ceased with the apostles). This position is called cessationism.

69. Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making widespread discipline, unity and order impossible. Some sects even claim to have “apostles” or “prophets” among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting therefrom.

70. Some strains of Protestantism (especially evangelicalism and fundamentalism) have an undue fascination for – even obsession with – the “end of the world,” which has led to unbiblical date-setting (Mt 24:30-44; 25:13; Lk 12:39-40) and much human tragedy among those who are taken in by such false prophecies.

71. Over-emphasis on the “imminent end” of the age (where found in Protestantism) has often led to a certain “pie-in-the sky” mentality, to the detriment of social, political, ethical, and economic sensibilities here on earth.

72. Protestant thought has a strong characteristic or tendency of being “dichotomous,” i.e., it separates ideas into more or less exclusive and mutually-hostile camps, when in fact many of the dichotomies are simply complementary rather than contradictory. Protestantism has been described as an “either-or” system, whereas Catholicism takes a “both-and” approach. Examples follow:

73. Protestantism pits the Word (the Bible, preaching) against sacraments.

74. Protestantism sets up inner devotion and piety against liturgy.

75. Protestantism opposes spontaneous worship to form prayers.

76. Protestantism separates the Bible from the Church.

77. Protestantism creates the false dichotomy of Bible vs. Tradition.

78. Protestantism pits Tradition against the Holy Spirit.

79. Protestantism considers (binding) Church authority and individual liberty and conscience contradictory.

80. Some forms of Protestantism (notably Luther and present-day dispensationalists) set up the Old Testament against the New Testament, even though Jesus did not do so (Mt 5:17-19; Mk 7:8-11; Lk 24:27,44; Jn 5:45-47).

81. On equally unbiblical grounds, some Protestants (notably, Lutherans) opposes law to grace.

82. Protestantism creates a false dichotomy between symbolism and sacramental reality (e.g., baptism, Eucharist).

83. Protestantism strongly tends to separate the individual from Christian community (1 Cor 12:14-27).

84. Protestantism pits the veneration of saints against the worship of God. Catholic theology doesn’t permit worship of saints. Rather, saints are revered and honored, not adored, as only God the Creator can be.



85. The anti-historical outlook of many Protestants leads to individuals thinking that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them, but has not, in effect, spoken to the multitudes of Christians for 1500 years before Protestantism began.

86. Flaws in original Protestant thought have led to even worse errors in reaction. E.g., extrinsic justification, devised to assure the predominance of grace, came to prohibit any outward sign of its presence (“faith vs. works,” sola fide). Calvinism, with its overly stern and rigid God, turned men off to such an extent that they became Unitarians (as in New England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries). Many founders of cults of recent origin started out Calvinist (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, etc.). One error begets another more serious and damaging error.

Read more at 150 Reasons Why I Became (and Remain) a Catholic

 

[APAK]

Regarding Post #473: The so-called central mystery of the RCC faith- The triune model of belief

And this is one of the pivotal and major reasons why I left RCC completely and Protestantism in the main. Why did Protestantism keep the trinity belief model? It is beyond me. This one model has done more harm and confusion to the proper interpretation of scripture that anything else. And folks ask why we don’t agree and argue over scripture interpretation. Look no further than this model.

Once you are well convinced that God = Jesus, and that there is a separate personality called the holy spirit apart for the Father’s intrinsic holy spirit, you are well on your way to utter confusion and in believing the wrong God and Jesus the Christ. Every time you see the word God in scripture you now must question and hesitate if this means Jesus the Christ and vis-a-versa. I’ve seen folks take this way too far and say that every time they see God in the OT they see Jesus Christ. It has now come to this, as they keep making scripture, nonsensical.

God is not the author of confusion.

APAK

 

[pia]

God is not the author of confusion

A big amen to that

 

[brakelite]

Only 2 times??? Wouldn't once be enough???

Actually, no. Even 20 times would not be sufficient to overturn any one of God's laws. Would 20 murders overturn the 6th commandment if the church said so? Please note something here you are overlooking. On both of those meetings, in Acts 20:7 and in John 20:19 the apostles were meeting at night. Read the context. A Biblical day began in the evening at sunset. Both these meetings, although technically on the first day of the week, were in fact Saturday night. The meeting in Acts was being held because on the morrow, that is Sunday morning, Paul was heading out of town. It could be very well understood that that particular meeting was merely a carryover from the Sabbath meetings they would have attended or held earlier that same day.
As for the meeting in John 20, the Bible is clear as to the reason the apostles were gathered together. Out of fear. Not to worship...not to 'break bread' (which according to Acts 2:46 they did daily) but for fear of the Jews...again this was after the Sabbath had closed at sunset.
Absolutely no evidence or support for the sacredness of a day that God Himself made holy to be transferred to any other day. Regardless of tradition or the testimony of church fathers.
And while I understand well the Catholic defense of the transmitting of authority to the church, one must be very brave to claim that authority extends to altering or abrogating God's laws.

 

[brakelite]

Regarding Post #473: The so-called central mystery of the RCC faith- The triune model of belief

And this is one of the pivotal and major reasons why I left RCC completely and Protestantism in the main. Why did Protestantism keep the trinity belief model? It is beyond me. This one model has done more harm and confusion to the proper interpretation of scripture that anything else. And folks ask why we don’t agree and argue over scripture interpretation. Look no further than this model.

Once you are well convinced that God = Jesus, and that there is a separate personality called the holy spirit apart for the Father’s intrinsic holy spirit, you are well on your way to utter confusion and in believing the wrong God and Jesus the Christ. Every time you see the word God in scripture you now must question and hesitate if this means Jesus the Christ and vis-a-versa. I’ve seen folks take this way too far and say that every time they see God in the OT they see Jesus Christ. It has now come to this, as they keep making scripture, nonsensical.

God is not the author of confusion.

APAK

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (1 Corinthians 8:6)
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

 

[rstrats]

epostle1,
re: "Sunday is known throughout 99% of Christendom as the day the Lord has made."

He also made the other six days.


re: "This reflects a total misunderstanding of the Early Church Fathers, who they were, and how they contributed to the development of the Church. We know they are not scripture, no one ever said they were. They give us glimpses of the life and thought of the times they were in, and there is nothing in scripture that says all beliefs, practices, and devotions must be found explicitly in scripture."

Then you should have replied to brakelite by saying that that there are no scriptures that attribute any sacredness to the 1st day of the week. Your answer should have been that it's a purely ecclesiastical pronouncement.



re: "Besides, it was the ECF that agreed on what was scripture and what was not."

Where does the ECF say that St. Justin, I Apol. 67G 6,429 and 432, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Magn. 9,1:SCh 10,88 and 109 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,122,4. are scripture?



re: "BTW, it was Justin Martyr who was the first to identify all 4 gospels in 120 AD, and you want to eliminate him???"

Yes. What has identifying what is scripture have to do with showing scripture that places sacredness on the 1st day of the week?"



re: "What you are saying is they couldn't do both."

I'm not saying that. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Acts 20:7 simply doesn't say. What I said was that even if the "breaking of bread" did mean the taking of the Lord's Supper that it had nothing to do with placing a special emphasis on the first day of the week because Acts 2:46 says that they broke bread every day.



re: "That's not what E.W. Bullinger is saying...not at all."

It certainly sounds like it to me: "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds"



re: "Only 2 times??? Wouldn't once be enough???"

Oh, come on. Even if the one time were referring to a rest and worship service, how would that be legitimate support for saying that it should be every 1st day of the week going forward?



re: "Do you always read scripture in time warps?"

I don't know what you mean.


(To be continued)

 

[GodsGrace]

WHO said Purgatory was a "place"??
Final purification of the elect is more of a state than a place - it it occurs BECAUSE of what Christ did for us.

If you're going to attempt to debate a topic - be sure that you have educated yourself about it first . . .

Why concentrate on whether or not purgatory is a place?
Just like heaven isn't a "place", neither is the catholic understanding of purgatory a "place".

The fact is that @mjrhealth is right. We are made righteous by Christ, unlike in the O.T. and the Mosaic Covenant and going all the way back to the Abrahamic Covenant when men were made righteous of their own deeds.
Genesis 15:6 Abraham believed the LORD and it was credited to him as righteousness.

If we need to spend time in purgatory, it means Jesus' sacrifice was not sufficient and His "covering" for us is not enough to save us from the wrath of God.
Romans 13:14
Galatians 3:27
Galatians 2:19-21