A Simple Yet Irrefutable Reason The Catholic church Is Not Rooted In Christ's Church

Phoneman777 said:

Sorry, but no.

And? He suffered and died on Friday - as important as is His resurrection - so should we keep that? All NT references to "Sunday" are simply a matter of chronological record, not to change if from the first day of the week we "shalt do all thy labor and all thy work".
Not an observance of anything. They got together SATURDAY NIGHT after the 7th day Sabbath sun set "and many light were burning in the chambers". Sabbatarians do to this day also meet to close the Sabbath and open the new week on Saturday night, because the 1st day of the week Biblically speaking begins when the Sabbath sun sets. "Break bread" is found throughout the Bible to simply mean "eat a meal". Acts 20 says they "broke bread" again after Paul revived Eutycus - what happened, the "Eucharist" needed to happen twice that night? They merely ate a meal twice, earlier and then again later.
The text says "lay by him in store" - which means "set aside individually at your house"...because the congregation does not live and sleep at the church, but at home. Jews got paid on Friday, rushed home to prepare for Sabbath, and only after the Sabbath sun set did they concern themselves with bills and finances, which is why Paul told them to lay aside offerings for the saints then. THERE WAS NO CHURCH BUILDING OR CHURCH TREASURER. "That there be no collections when I come" refers to time wasted selling a cow or running to the bank - Paul needed to knock on each Christian door, grab the cash they set aside "by him in store" and hurry away to the suffering saints in Jerusalem.
There's only ONE day which is the "Lord's Day" and it ain't Sunday. "If thou turn away thy foot from the SABBATH, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY..." Also, "Therefore, the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath".
Foreknowledge of the apostasy is not in any way the same as "acceptance" of apostasy.
Stop trying to defend Sunday sacredness with Scripture - the Catholic church plainly tells you that Sunday sacredness is not found in Scripture, but is exclusively a law of the Roman Catholic church, which is blasphemy. The Ten Commandments plainly teach the 7th day Sabbath as God's day of worship, and days 1 - 6 as plain old blood, sweat, tears work days....which is why we have the Sabbath to take a break and spend the day with God and the brethren.

Click to expand...

It's quite ironic isn't it. And hypocritical. They were screeds of nonsense justifying so called "sacred tradition", then attempt to justify Sunday using scripture lol.

farouk said:

Well, tradition is never going to supersede Scripture.........

Click to expand...

Hello farouk,

Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition. I have yet to be at any protestant service that reverences our Holy Texts as the Catholic Church does.
Every Mass is loaded with Scripture. In the readings and pslams, the prayers and hymns..

Here is just an example:

'for from east to west You never cease to gather a people to Yourself, so that a pure offering might be made'
(See Malachi 1:11)

Pax et Bonum

Philip James said:

Hello farouk,

Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition. I have yet to be at any protestant service that reverences our Holy Texts as the Catholic Church does.
Every Mass is loaded with Scripture. In the readings and pslams, the prayers and hymns..

Here is just an example:

'for from east to west You never cease to gather a people to Yourself, so that a pure offering might be made'
(See Malachi 1:11)

Pax et Bonum

Click to expand...

Nothing else is on a par with Scripture........

Illuminator said:

Wrong. The Nicene Creed s a post-biblical development based entirely on Scripture.
Nicene Creed ( Christian Reformed site)

Click to expand...

Didn't you say not long ago that the Trinity was not found in scripture but was based on "sacred tradition"? I'm confused. I agree that the Trinity isn't taught in explicitly scripture, but is the result of man's assumptions regarding what scripture teaches. You can call that sacred if you like. Non-Christians denominations have the prerogative of using anything they like to justify any error they choose.

Philip James said:

Hello farouk,

Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition. I have yet to be at any protestant service that reverences our Holy Texts as the Catholic Church does.
Every Mass is loaded with Scripture. In the readings and pslams, the prayers and hymns..

Here is just an example:

'for from east to west You never cease to gather a people to Yourself, so that a pure offering might be made'
(See Malachi 1:11)

Pax et Bonum

Click to expand...

What Catholic perversion was that quote from?

BreadOfLife said:

Because of this – YOU need to explain why –
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

Click to expand...

.
.
The rationale that division proves the impossibility of truth seems hardly sensible.

If there is absolute truth to be known, surely God would be just as able to reveal it to one person as He is to 1.2 billion people.

Religious liberty stipulates that people believe, express, and worship according to the dictates of their own consciences, which is bound to produce variance.

Roman Catholics can be excommunicated for doing this, can't they?

If they have differing beliefs, they must keep it to themselves if they want to be serviced by the church, mustn't they?

My experience of working, for years, for a family business run by good, Catholic people bears this out, at least.

I think the actual universality of Catholicism must be becoming more and more of an illusion over time (IOW, it's splintering, too, beneath the surface).

.
.

Brakelite said:

What Catholic perversion was that quote from?

Click to expand...

Hello Brakelite,

Perversion? From the beginning the Church has recognized the offering of the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11.
~The Didache~

You will find that referenced in liturgies down through the centuries.. Go ahead and look for it..

Pax et Bonum

Philip James said:

Hello Brakelite,

Perversion? From the beginning the Church has recognized the offering of the Eucharist as the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11.
~The Didache~

You will find that referenced in liturgies down through the centuries.. Go ahead and look for it..

Pax et Bonum

Click to expand...

KJV Malachi 1:11
11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Can't help but notice the subtle change between your quote above...

Philip James said:

for from east to west You never cease to gather a people to Yourself, so that a pure offering might be made'

Click to expand...

And the quote from scripture.

Brakelite said:

KJV Malachi 1:11
11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Can't help but notice the subtle change between your quote above...

Click to expand...

Even with "subtle changes", it means the same thing. You have no incense, no pure offering, and there is nothing great about the false prophecies of Ellen G. White. You can't claim fulfilment of Malachi 1:11 in any meaningful sense.

BarneyFife said:

.
.
The rationale that division proves the impossibility of truth seems hardly sensible.

If there is absolute truth to be known, surely God would be just as able to reveal it to one person as He is to 1.2 billion people.

Religious liberty stipulates that people believe, express, and worship according to the dictates of their own consciences, which is bound to produce variance.

Click to expand...

Variance indeed, but within acceptable parameters. Conscience must be formed.
4 Things That Should Form Our Conscience - RELEVANT CATECHESIS

Roman Catholics can be excommunicated for doing this, can't they?

Click to expand...

No. People excommunicate themselves by separating from God in mortal sin. Formal excommunication is usually reserved for errant theologians or clergy who repeatedly refuse to be corrected. The pattern for excommunication follows the teachings of Jesus and Paul and has not changed through the centuries.
Why and How One Is Excommunicated
Excommunication: It’s Not What You Think

If they have differing beliefs, they must keep it to themselves if they want to be serviced by the church, mustn't they?

Click to expand...

If Catholics oppose official Church teaching, it's between them and God. If a Catholic commits a serious sin, (that damages others) he shouldn't receive the Eucharist until he gets right with God. We don't have a mind reading police department.

CCC2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

CCC2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

I think the universality of Catholicism must be becoming more and more of an illusion over time (IOW, it's splintering, too, beneath the surface).

Click to expand...

So what. There has always been dissention within the Church. That doesn't prove the Church is wrong. If the Church never had any dissention, it wouldn't grow. The heresiarch Arius is a case in point.

Taken said:

Yes. Remember the Jews were historically steeped in Godly Beliefs, and were assimilating with Gentiles, to whit Jesus called them lost.
Historically Israel, Tribesmen, Jews had multiple traditions, of holy days celebrations, mournings, feasts, etc. <—- Traditions
Whether they were lost, unknowing, or first learning....the Jews were being taught and reminded to hold on to, continue their Traditions.

Paul was steeped in knowledge of the OT and Jewish Laws and Traditions.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that thoughtful post. I would like to collaborate with what I found on a JEWISH site: (my words in italics)

CHURCH FATHERS, term designating the spiritual and doctrinal proponents of Christianity during its first centuries. First reserved for bishops, the designation was later also accorded to other ecclesiastical authorities. The criteria of eligibility for this designation are (1) orthodoxy of doctrine (i.e., identification with the teachings of the official Church); (2) saintliness of conduct; (3) ecclesiastical approbation; (4) seniority. The authority of the Church Fathers resides in the principle accepted by the Church of considering tradition a source of faith. The patristic period ends in the West in 636 with the death of *Isidore of Seville and in the Orient in 749 with that of John of Damascus. In the main, two aspects concerning the relationship between the Church Fathers and the Jews and Judaism are discussed here: their contribution to anti-Jewish polemics; and their knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinic teachings.

Mention should be made of the "Epistle of Barnabas" (second century), a New Testament apocryphal work in Greek, which is unique in the literature of the early Church for its radical anti-Jewish attitude. According to the anonymous author of this text, the Jews have misunderstood the Law by interpreting it literally instead of looking for the spiritual meaning. The author stresses the obligation of Christians not to celebrate the Sabbath, but Sunday, the day of the resurrection of Jesus. (we should be grateful the Church Fathers corrected those morons who thought this garbage was inspired, instead of ignoring them)


"The Epistle of Barnabas"

ARISTIDES OF ATHENS, in his Apologia addressed to Emperor Hadrian in about 123–24, attacks the Jews at the same time as he polemicizes against the Barbarians and the Greeks. The first Christian polemicist to attack the Jews directly was ARISTON OF PELLA (mid-second century) in his "Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus"; this work has been lost and only the preface to a Latin translation (also lost) is extant.
Wow! That must be why nobody can find Sabbatarians in the 2nd century!!!
It's ironic that "sola scriptura" is a LATIN phrase!

The first anti-Jewish polemic in Greek which has been almost entirely preserved is the "Dialogue with Tryphon" by JUSTIN (d. 165), the most important Christian apologist of the second century.




full context of the Dialgue here. Decide for yourself if Justin is an anti-Jewish polemic. Keep in mind Justin's teachers got thrown out of the synagogues like Jesus said they would.

atpollard said:

Quote from “Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp” referring to Mary as “Queen of the Universe” or “Co-redemptrix” as they preserve the Apostolic oral tradition.

Click to expand...

WHY should I?
NEUTHER of those are official titles for Mary or considered Apostolic Tradition.

Now – by the very SAME measuring stick – how about YOU showing ME where the following Protestant doctrines are named in the Bible:
Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)
Sola Fide (Faith Alone)
While you’re at it – show me where the word “Trinity” is found in Scripture – or even the word, “Bible”.

I’ll wait here for your response . . .

BarneyFife said:

.
.The rationale that division proves the impossibility of truth seems hardly sensible.
If there is absolute truth to be known, surely God would be just as able to reveal it to one person as He is to 1.2 billion people.
Religious liberty stipulates that people believe, express, and worship according to the dictates of their own consciences, which is bound to produce variance.
Roman Catholics can be excommunicated for doing this, can't they?
If they have differing beliefs, they must keep it to themselves if they want to be serviced bythe church, mustn't they?

My experience of working, for years, for a family business run by good, Catholic people bears this out, at least.
I think the actual universality of Catholicism must be becoming more and more of an illusion over time (IOW, it's splintering, too, beneath the surface).

Click to expand...

Not sure where you get your ideas about the Catholic Church – but like 99% of there people here – you’re WRONG.

We don’t get “excommunicated” for having differing views or following our conscience. In fact – we are encouraged to follow our conscience.

The Church isn’t a prison for criminals – nor is it museum for perfect people.
It’s a hospital for sinners.

BreadOfLife said:

The Church isn’t a prison for criminals – nor is it museum for perfect people.
It’s a hospital for sinners.

Click to expand...

So they can leave and stop going after they are treated?

LOL!

atpollard said:

Mark 7:5-13 [NKJV]

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"
He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with [their] lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching [as] doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men--the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
He said to them, "[All too] well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me [is] Corban"--' (that is, a gift [to God]), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do."​

Click to expand...

THANK YOU for publicly illustrating just how ignorant you are of Scripture.

This passage is NOT about Jesus rejecting Tradition. He OBSERVED Oral Tradition - as I already showed you (Matt 23:2).
In Mark 7:5-13 – Jesus is rebuking the PHARISEES – and NOT Tradition. He rebuked THEIR little invented traditions that they placed ABOVE the Word of God – which includes Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
You go on about COTEXT – yet you completely ignore it here.
READ the first 2 verses:
Mark 7:1-2
The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the TRADITION OF THE ELDERS.

This wasn’t a part of the Mosaic Law – but a rule that the Pharisees made up and were judging Jesus and His disciples by it.
Pay attention to the CONTEXT . . .

Michiah-Imla said:

So they can leave and stop going after they are treated?
LOL!

Click to expand...

Another idiotic non-answer.
Good job . . .

atpollard said:

An argument from silence fallacy.

Click to expand...

From “SILENCE”?
This proves that you don’t understand Tradition – WHAT it is or HOW it works.

ALL through the OT, Sacred Oral Tradition was just as binding on the Jews as what was written (Scripture). I showed you several examples. We also have the testimonies from the episode fthe Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church.

For some reason, though, YOU believe that God “changed” that rule – yet NONE of you can show me where He states this change took place.
And, until you can – your argument is pointless.

BreadOfLife said:

Another idiotic non-answer.
Good job . . .

Click to expand...

“In all things showing yourself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.” (Titus 2:7-8)

You make it so that unbelievers have opportunity to speak evil of you without shame.