Transubstantiation. What is it?

[Tulipbee]

There are a lot of things that Catholics do that are not according to the Bible. The Bible is not their authority, the Catholic church is.

In certain Calvinist perspectives, there can be concerns about practices within the Catholic Church that are seen as not aligning closely with what is explicitly taught in the Bible. Calvinists often emphasize the sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) in matters of faith and practice, suggesting that the Bible should be the ultimate guide for doctrine and Christian living.
Some specific points of contention in Calvinist-Catholic discussions might include:

1. Sola Scriptura: Calvinists typically affirm the principle of sola scriptura, asserting that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for faith and practice. They may argue that certain Catholic doctrines or practices go beyond what is explicitly stated in Scripture.
2. Role of Tradition: Catholicism places importance on both Scripture and Tradition, considering them as sources of authority. Calvinists might express concerns about certain traditions that they believe deviate from or add to the teachings of the Bible.
3. Sacraments and Practices: Differences in sacramental theology and liturgical practices might be points of contention. Calvinists often emphasize the simplicity of worship and sacraments based on biblical precedent.

It's important to note that views on these matters can vary widely within both the Calvinist and Catholic traditions. Interactions between these traditions often involve nuanced theological discussions, and individuals within each tradition may hold diverse perspectives.
Engaging in respectful and open conversations with individuals from different theological perspectives can be valuable for mutual understanding and learning. If you have specific questions or if there's a particular aspect you'd like more information about, feel free to let me know.

 

[Augustin56]

It appears to me that you have made the Catholic church your Jesus. Just like the Pharisees made the Torah their Jesus.

Interesting choice of words.

Consider Acts 9:4, when Saul (St. Paul by his Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the first Christians. Jesus knocked him off his horse and said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why do you persecte My Church?" which he was actually doing, but "...why do you persecute Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church. Persecute Christ's Church and you persecute Christ! Historically, there is no doubt that the only Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity was the Catholic Church. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. Protestantism didn't begin till the 16th century!

The Church is called the Body of Christ because Christ is the head of the Church and we are called to do the work of Christ, each like members of a body.

Paul wrote this to the church of Corinth: “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many” (1 Corinthians 12:12-14).

We have two choices as Christians. We can follow Christ by being members of the Church, His Body, that He established. Or, we can try to follow Christ according to our own wishes and desires, and try to rediscover, on our own, Divine Revelation. I would argue that we are called to follow Christ according to the way He wants us to follow Him...through His Church.

 

[RedFan]

The model, as explained, was Isaiah 22:22. Everyone in first century Israel and the surrounding area understood the position of the second-in-command to the king. And, the position was dynastic. That means, if the second-in-command died, he was replaced by another. It was never a one-off position.

We need only look to history to see that this is how the first Christians understood this position, because there was always a successor to the position. You can see a list of Popes here: List Of The Popes Of The Catholic Church | uCatholic

So, we are to assume that of all the bishops that Peter may have appointed in his travels (e.g., Antioch), the one man that he assigned his “keys” to was a bishop he appointed in Rome, generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James). Or, perhaps we are to assume that upon Peter's death there was a vote taken by bishops/clerics (in Italy? throughout the Mediterranean world? was a single member of the original Twelve among those casting a vote?) to elect his successor, a la Matthias in Acts 1:24-26.

Is there any first century writing that documents either assumption?

 

[marks]

The Apostles gave that authority to their successors, the bishops. Those bishops gave that authority to their successor bishops, etc. Authority is "given" not taken. Power is taken.

That's the fiction though. This is not in the Scriptures. Jesus gave a special authority to His other disciples also, in remitting or retaining sins, and this also was not transferred in Scripture.

So it's power that was taken, not authority that was given, and with the result of, like @David H. wrote, inserting themselves between Father and His child.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I'm on board for interpreting Matthew 16 as indicating that Christ invested Peter with special authority. But there is no Scriptural basis for anyone after Peter succeeding to his authority, whether by assignment from Peter directly or by vote of other bishops/clerics. The passing on of the Keys requires some discussion here.

That's exactly it. They take this onto themselves, creating an hierarchy unknown in the Biblical Christian Church.

Much love!

 

[marks]

We have two choices as Christians. We can follow Christ by being members of the Church, His Body, that He established. Or, we can try to follow Christ according to our own wishes and desires, and try to rediscover, on our own, Divine Revelation. I would argue that we are called to follow Christ according to the way He wants us to follow Him...through His Church.

Way too many contradictions between your church teaching and the Bible's teaching. You can claim it's just about interpretation but I'm not stupid, and that's not real. It's just a way to call black white.

Your choice above, it's a false dichotomy. No, the choice isn't "the catholic church, or every man for himself". That's an absurd argument, and I'm sorry, I've seen far too many poor arguments to just gloss over them.

We follow Jesus by His Spirit, and in churches which follow His Word.

Much love!

 

[Taken]

When babies are born, sometimes they aren't named for a day or two (depending on the culture and circumstances). When the baby is given an official name, he/she does not become a different person. They are the same person with a name (label) to be able to identify them.

Irrelevant.

The Church founded by Christ very early on came to be known as the Catholic Church.

Pretty confidant regarding Jesus’ Church: He said He would build it and it would be “His Church”, and Christ is the Head of His Church.

Matt 16
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter…

I find no reference to Ignatius in Scripture implying any importance to such person.

The buildings of the Church aren't an integral part of the real Church, but a tool thereof.

A “tool” ? Humm. Pretty confident God impressed a building such as:
A Temple, Synagogue, Church would be A House dedicated to God as A House of Prayer.

The doctrines of the Church were handed to the Church by Jesus Christ, Who gave them to the Apostles, and who, in turn, handed them on to their successors,

I find history to be different, In that Jesus established His Church; His Church being a Spiritual Internal Church, and Christ is the Head of His Church; and Jesus verbally taught His Jewish disciples and Jesus often as well taught in Jewish Synagogues…and thereafter so also did the Apostles primarily teach Jewish people.

Matt 10
[1] And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
[2] Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
[8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
[9] Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
[10] Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
[11] And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
[12] And when ye come into an house, salute it.
[13] And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
[14] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now. These original doctrines are the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The Church has never changed any of the doctrines given her by Christ, nor does it claim the authority to change them.

In “catholic” teaching…
THE Church
THE Head
THE Saints
THE Congregation
THE Doctrine
THE Priests
THE Council
Blah, blah, blah only have credence WHEN “the word CATHOLIC is interjected”.

Christ promised to remain with His Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20). This means He will protect His Church from teaching error.

Sure…Christ’s Church IS internal. Christ’s Church members KEPT unto Himself by the Power OF God who IS Christ…and Jesus IS the internal True Word of God, Christ IS the internal True Wisdom of God…of course a man In-dwelt spirit with the Spirit of God receives his spiritual truth and wisdom from the Spirit of God.

What does that have to do with 3rd parties, Letters of Gentile men and THE Catholic Tool Church?

 

[Augustin56]

So, we are to assume that of all the bishops that Peter may have appointed in his travels (e.g., Antioch), the one man that he assigned his “keys” to was a bishop he appointed in Rome, generally assumed to be Linus, per John Chrysostum’s Homily 10 on Second Timothy (“This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”), but possibly Clement (per the Epistle of Clement to James). Or, perhaps we are to assume that upon Peter's death there was a vote taken by bishops/clerics (in Italy? throughout the Mediterranean world? was a single member of the original Twelve among those casting a vote?) to elect his successor, a la Matthias in Acts 1:24-26.

Is there any first century writing that documents either assumption?

Unfortunately, iPhones, iPads, digital cameras, video cameras, computers, etc., were not available in ancient times to record everything in a nice clean format, as proof. I would be surprised if the people of that time thought that everything they did had to be documented as proof for some distant point in time.

That's the fiction though. This is not in the Scriptures. Jesus gave a special authority to His other disciples also, in remitting or retaining sins, and this also was not transferred in Scripture.

So it's power that was taken, not authority that was given, and with the result of, like @David H. wrote, inserting themselves between Father and His child.

Much love!

With regard to Apostolic Succession, we cling tightly to this tradition because it’s true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you’ll see the Apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was “chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.” After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of Apostolic Succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the Apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity.

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. It is an extrabiblical, man-made docrine that came along way late in Christianity. In fact, the Bible says that not everything Christ taught is in the Bible (John 21:25) Yet, in Matt. 28:20, we have Christ commanding the Apostles to teach everything He taught them. So, where's the difference? In Holy Tradition, aka Oral Tradition, spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15. It is the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" according to 1 Tim 3:15.

 

[marks]

With regard to Apostolic Succession, we cling tightly to this tradition because it’s true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you’ll see the Apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas’s suicide.

I'd suggest that you will make a better presentation if you don't just list some references and claim they support your position, but post the passage, and show the words that support your position.

I've seen this used as a ploy many many times, where someone puts a list of verses numbers, but not one actually says what they are saying.

Yes, they replaced Judas as per the Scriptures. But because something applies in one case does not make it a rule for everyone or at all times.

Let's put this to the test.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands.

1 Timothy 1:6 KJV
From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

This verse doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.

1 Timothy 4:14 KJV
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The gift, not the "office of Bishop". And actually, Bishop isn't from Scripture. Scripture speaks of overseers, pastors (shepherds), and elders.

So could you explain to me how these passages support your assertion,

that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands

because I don't see it, and it looks like you are posting some passages to show you have support from the Bible, while those passages don't say what you claim.

So what's the deal here? I don't expect you are intentionally trying to deceive, but this isn't adding up.

Much love!

 

[Augustin56]

Irrelevant.



Pretty confidant regarding Jesus’ Church: He said He would build it and it would be “His Church”, and Christ is the Head of His Church.

Matt 16
[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



I find no reference to Ignatius in Scripture implying any importance to such person.



A “tool” ? Humm. Pretty confident God impressed a building such as:
A Temple, Synagogue, Church would be A House dedicated to God as A House of Prayer.



I find history to be different, In that Jesus established His Church; His Church being a Spiritual Internal Church, and Christ is the Head of His Church; and Jesus verbally taught His Jewish disciples and Jesus often as well taught in Jewish Synagogues…and thereafter so also did the Apostles primarily teach Jewish people.

Matt 10
[1] And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
[2] Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
[6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
[7] And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
[8] Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
[9] Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
[10] Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
[11] And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
[12] And when ye come into an house, salute it.
[13] And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
[14] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.



In “catholic” teaching…
THE Church
THE Head
THE Saints
THE Congregation
THE Doctrine
THE Priests
THE Council
Blah, blah, blah only have credence WHEN “the word CATHOLIC is interjected”.



Sure…Christ’s Church IS internal. Christ’s Church members KEPT unto Himself by the Power OF God who IS Christ…and Jesus IS the internal True Word of God, Christ IS the internal True Wisdom of God…of course a man In-dwelt spirit with the Spirit of God receives his spiritual truth and wisdom from the Spirit of God.

What does that have to do with 3rd parties, Letters of Gentile men and THE Catholic Tool Church?

I think, from your post, that you agree that Jesus did build a (one) Church, with Christ as its head and the position of Pope as His vicar until He returns. Now, historically, which Church would that be? I would argue that it is beyond a doubt that the original Church still exists, and that it is the Catholic Church. Why? Because there was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity! The Orthodox broke off in 1054 A.D. And Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century!

It sounds like your "no reference to Ignatius in Scripture" assumes that everything must be in Scripture. John 21:25 says that not everything Jesus did and taught is in Scripture. Matt. 28:20 says that Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach ALL that He had taught them. So, if everything is to be taught, and everthing is not in Scripture, where's the part to be taught that's not in Scripture? 2 Thes 2:15 says "oral tradition" aka "Holy Tradition." Tradition in this sense means "teaching," not "common practices."

Read the Early Church Fathers to see how the first Christians looked at things. They were closer in time and culture than any of us, and would have had a much easier time of understanding. Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Church has carried on the fullness of Divine Revelation in its teaching for 2000 years now, never once changing anything Christ taught. If you think so, then your personal interpretation is clearly wrong. St. Paul said that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Not someone 2000 years later, reading a modern translation of the Bible through modern views.

 

[RedFan]

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. It is an extrabiblical, man-made docrine that came along way late in Christianity. In fact, the Bible says that not everything Christ taught is in the Bible (John 21:25) Yet, in Matt. 28:20, we have Christ commanding the Apostles to teach everything He taught them. So, where's the difference? In Holy Tradition, aka Oral Tradition, spoken of by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15. It is the Church that is the "pillar and foundation of truth" according to 1 Tim 3:15.

I'll go further than that. The gospel of salvation through Christ was initially a matter of oral transmission alone, premised on the authority of eyewitness apostles long before the first Pauline letters, even longer before the four canonical gospels, were penned.

Question: why should the writing of the NT have ended that apostolic authority? I see no reason it should. Whether to challenge the RCC as the repository of that authority today is a separate matter – but I am at a loss to understand this supposed replacement of apostolic authority with the NT canon. It makes no sense to me.

How do “sola scriptura” denizens view the interstitial period between Pentecost and the publication of the various books of the NT in the latter half of the first century C.E.? Oral transmission of doctrine was pretty much all there was in that period. Is it all invalid because it's not "scriptura"?

 

[marks]

In fact, the Bible says that not everything Christ taught is in the Bible (John 21:25)

John 21:25 KJV
25) And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Here again, the verse that you reference, but do not actually quote, does not say, repeat, does not say what you claim.

You seem to have a difficulty with misrepresenting Scripture. You are posting references that don't say what you claim. So it looks like your post has Scripture support but it doesn't.

In this case, you use a wrong reading of this passage to create a false view, that Jesus commanded that His disciple teach what is not found in the Bible, supporting your view, except it's a fiction, build on an erroneous reading.

Does this matter to you? Or are you OK with this?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I'll go further than that. The gospel of salvation through Christ was initially a matter of oral transmission alone, premised on the authority of eyewitness apostles long before the first Pauline letters, even longer before the four canonical gospels, were penned.

Question: why should the writing of the NT have ended that apostolic authority? I see no reason it should. Whether to challenge the RCC as the repository of that authority today is a separate matter – but I am at a loss to understand this supposed replacement of apostolic authority with the NT canon. It makes no sense to me.

How do “sola scriptura” denizens view the interstitial period between Pentecost and the publication of the various books of the NT in the latter half of the first century C.E.? Oral transmission of doctrine was pretty much all there was in that period. Is it all invalid because it's not "scriptura"?

I think the point is that all must agree with the Bible. Yes, they relied on oral teaching at the first. But none of that teaching will contradict Scripture, even that which wasn't yet written.

Now that we have the written Word, we test everything against that. Because God will NOT contradict Himself.

So those who do contradict the Scriptures, that is not from God.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

I think the point is that all must agree with the Bible. Yes, they relied on oral teaching at the first. But none of that teaching will contradict Scripture, even that which wasn't yet written.

Now that we have the written Word, we test everything against that. Because God will NOT contradict Himself.

So those who do contradict the Scriptures, that is not from God.

Much love!

Respectfully, the fact that no oral teaching may contradict Scripture doesn't preclude oral teaching from supplementing Scripture. As long as both are consistent, both may be valid sources of teaching. Scriptura need not be Sola as long as the oral traditions don't gainsay what is written.

 

[marks]

Respectfully, the fact that no oral teaching may contradict Scripture doesn't preclude oral teaching from supplementing Scripture. As long as both are consistent, both may be valid sources of teaching. Scriptura need not be Sola as long as the oral traditions don't gainsay what is written.

Personally I've found the Bible to be amazingly far reaching in it's refutation of error. It's difficult for me to think of anything that's not addressed in some manner in the Bible. And almost always, in a direct way, either by directly addressing the issue, or by making a statement that precludes the erroneous teaching.

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

Personally I've found the Bible to be amazingly far reaching in it's refutation of error. It's difficult for me to think of anything that's not addressed in some manner in the Bible. And almost always, in a direct way, either by directly addressing the issue, or by making a statement that precludes the erroneous teaching.

Much love!

Well, I don't know what you are counting as "erroneous teaching" here, but there is a lot of generally accepted Christian doctrine that has evolved through various Church councils and through writings of the Church Fathers, which finds rather tenuous confirmation in the NT, and then only with a measure of interpretation of ambiguous writings. For instance, debate over how much of the Trinity is Scripturally supported has raged for centuries.

 

[marks]

Well, I don't know what you are counting as "erroneous teaching" here, but there is a lot of generally accepted Christian doctrine that has evolved through various Church councils and through writings of the Church Fathers, which finds rather tenuous confirmation in the NT, and then only with a measure of interpretation of ambiguous writings. For instance, debate over how much of the Trinity is Scripturally supported has raged for centuries.

I suppose I mean "erroneous teaching" in a rather pragmatic sense, being any teaching refuted in the Bible. For instance many teach a tithe offering being required of us.

This is plainly refuted in Paul's writing where he wrote giving is not to be by compulsion. So we know that teaching is error. We can further harmonize this in the balance of Scripture in that the tithe was actually part of the covenant that God made with Israel, from which others were specifically excluded.

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV
11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

What seems to generally be my experience is that as I learn the affirmed teachings of the Bible - the things it comes right out and says, this is what is true - and then I hear a teaching that I don't find affirmed in this way, I tend to find passages which make statements that prohibit that understanding.

This will be different for different people depending on how literally they hold to the text.

For instance, the Sheep and Goats judgment, I see this as being when Jesus comes to the earth, He sets up His throne, and judges the nations based on their treatment of Israel. I see this is as the most basic and simple way to read the passage. Those who have different views of the church or Israel or the kingdom won't hold to the exactness of the passage, and will equate it to the Great White Throne Judgment, or will treat it as a parable.

Joel 3 contains a parallel passage in his prophecy,

Joel 3:1-2 KJV
1) For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,
2) I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

And here, he actually names the place - a location on the earth - so I know that declaring the passage in Matthew a parable, or the GWTJ, both are incorrect. The time is, when Jesus returns in power and glory, and the location is on earth.

Much love!

 

[Taken]

I think, from your post, that you agree that Jesus did build a (one) Church, with Christ as its head

I stated as much as my Belief.

and the position of Pope as His vicar until He returns.

No.
God is my Holy Heavenly Father, and giver to me of His Understanding.
Jesus is my internal Holy Teacher of Gods Truth.
Christ is my internal Holy Power.
Abraham is my Appointed Earthly Father.

Now, historically, which Church would that be?

Christ Jesus’ Church.

I would argue that it is beyond a doubt that the original Church still exists

I will state without need to argue, Christ Jesus’ Church still exists.

, and that it is the Catholic Church.

Disagree.

Why? Because there was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity!

Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.

The Orthodox broke off in 1054 A.D. And Protestantism didn't begin until the 16th century!

Started by … a Catholic?
Why?

It sounds like your "no reference to Ignatius in Scripture" assumes that everything must be in Scripture.

Scripture is my trusted source for verifying what others say implying or stating it is Scriptural teaching…or simply “THEIR” religious teaching.

Acts 17:
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

John 21:25 says that not everything Jesus did and taught is in Scripture.

Uh huh.

Matt. 28:20 says that Jesus commanded the Apostles to teach ALL that He had taught them.

No. You have inverted command and teaching, and omitted observing.

Matt 28:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So, if everything is to be taught,

Your basis is faulty, thus your question on a faulty basis, irrelevant.

and everthing is not in Scripture, where's the part to be taught that's not in Scripture? 2 Thes 2:15 says "oral tradition" aka "Holy Tradition." Tradition in this sense means "teaching," not "common practices."

Jesus’ (fulfilling prophecy) Scriptural teaching was via Parables.

Mark 4:
[34] But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

Read the Early Church Fathers to see how the first Christians looked at things.

No thank you.

They were closer in time and culture than any of us, and would have had a much easier time of understanding.

Please do not include me in your opinion of yourself.

Understanding from the Beginning to this Day, is a Gift from God to the individual who seeks His Understanding.

Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Church has carried on the fullness of Divine Revelation in its teaching for 2000 years now, never once changing anything Christ taught.

If you think so, then your personal interpretation is clearly wrong.

Uh…why are you making an accusatory statement on something “you” have no knowledge of my thought on that point?

St. Paul said that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." Not someone 2000 years later, reading a modern translation of the Bible through modern views.

I am confident Paul was expressly speaking of Christ’s Church, of which I am a member, so established according to Gods Way.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. It is an extrabiblical, man-made docrine that came along way late in Christianity.

2 Tim 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Perhaps you can share where Scripture itself teaches a “non scriptural” source, inspired of God, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteousness….

 

[marks]

Scripture is my trusted source for verifying what others say implying or stating it is Scriptural teaching…or simply “THEIR” religious teaching.

Acts 17:
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Acts 17:10-12 KJV
10) And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12) Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

These were more nobel in that they search the Scriptures to see if those things . . . what things? What Paul and Silas taught them.

They were double checking Paul according to their Bible!

And the Catholics call that wrong? Hardly!

Much love!