A Reply To Your Sig

[littleflower+JMJ]

why would anything be written by the first bishops of the Church themselves, be put together (by the Holy Spirit),called sacred for thousands of years, defended, keep complete to later (many--many years later) [i]need to be reformed[/i] by ppl who left the Church?

[quote]The Apostles were bishops, yes, but not Roman Catholic bishops.[/quote]

this also doenst' make sense.....does this mean we're not christians because only those who lived in the early times are?

and if so only the apostles, then how can anyone, who are clearly do not have any link or connection with the first apostles, later then say we are can, should and have a right to reform anything (ie. the reformation) ?


pax christi.

[ironmonk]

All,

You see the above evidence as a straw man attempt to change the subject, and distract by throwing everything and the kitchen sink at us.

Anti-Catholics cannot stick to one point about the Catholic Church, because if they did, then they are proven wrong.

Note the quotes without references to the letters or books written. This is typical of those who lie to people like icthus because they don't want them to double check. If you notice sites like Karl Keatings, he has nothing to hide, so he posts the references to the writings, normally to the paragraph number.

I don't have time to answer the barrage of error tonight because I'm going to have to track down each quote which is very time consuming.... If the quote even exists. Typically, the anti-Catholics take a quote out of context (of course) and ignore everything else they taught... then you can take the saint's quote along with the paragraph it's in and show the true context... on top of that, the saints that they quote are all Catholic loyal to the Popes... and they only use the one or two lines from the saints, and ignore all the other VERY Catholic quotes that those saints have.

I can't understand how many of these people insist on we being wrong but never being able to show it, when time and time again they are proven wrong by the very same people they quote.


icthus,

Please try to do the challenge correctly. References, references, references.

Yes, the Apostles were Roman Catholic Bishops. According to Britannica and all the saints.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited August 9, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 07:17 PM'] Sure, the Roman Church preserved the Scriptures, to which the Reformed owe it a debt of gratitude. But this was part of God's providential plan to restore His Church out of the captivity of the [color=red][edited by littleflower: being disrepectful][/color] [/quote]
Being disrespectful, eh?

Revelation 17

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. 2With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."
3Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5This title was written on her forehead: [b]MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH[/b]. 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.
7When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
12"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."
15Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

I'm noticing an interesting correlation with the title given to the whore in v.4 with the title given by the Apostle St. Peter to the city of ROME in 1 Peter 5:13

She who is in [b]Babylon[/b], chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 08:05 PM']SOLA FIDE IN THE FATHERS

Clement of Rome: "We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, [b]or works which we have done in holiness or heart, [i]but through faith[/i]"[/b] (Epistle to Corinthians).

Ignatius: "His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, [b]and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments[/b]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified (Epistle to Philadelphians). Note: "muniments" are title deeds, documents giving evidence of legal ownership of something.

Polycarp: "[b]I know that through grace you are saved, [i]not of works[/i][/b], but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ (Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr: "[b]No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep[/b], or by the ashes of a heifer...are sins purged, [b]but by faith[/b], through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account (Dialogue with Trypho). "God gave his own Son the ransom for us...for what, save his righteousness, could cover our sins. In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? ...O unexpected benefit, [b]that the transgression of many should be hidden in[/b] one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors" (Letter to Diognetus).

Ireneus: "Through the obedience of one man who first was born from the Virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation."

Cyprian: "If Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness, then each one, who believes in God and lives by faith, is found to be a righteous person."

Athanasius: "[b]Not by these (i.e. human efforts) but by faith[/b], a man is justified as was Abraham."

Basil: "This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness and to be justified by faith alone in Christ."

Ambrose: "[b]Without the works of the law, to an ungodly man[/b], that is to say, a Gentile, believing in Christ, [b]his "faith is imputed for righteousness[/b]" as also it was to Abraham."

Origen: "[b]Through faith, without the works of the law[/b], the dying thief was justified, because...the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he should have believe; but...he took him unto himself for a companion, justified through his confession alone."

Jerome: "When an ungodly man is converted, [b]God justified him through faith alone,[/b] not on account of good works which he possessed not."

Chrysostom: "What then did God do? He made (says Paul) a righteous Person (Christ) to be a sinner, in order that he might make sinners righteous... it is the righteousness of God, when we are justified, [b]not by works[/b]...but by grace, where all sin is made to vanish away."

Augustine: "Grace is give to you, not wages paid to you...it is called grace because it is given gratuitously. By no precedent merits did you buy what you have received. The sinner therefore received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him...good works [i]follow after a justified person[/i]; they do not go before in order that he may be justified...[b]good works, following after justification, [i]show what a man has received."[/i] [/b]

Anselm: "Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? Go, then, and ...[b]put all your confidence in this death alone[/b]. If God shall say to you, "You are a sinner", say to him, "I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sin.""

Bernard of Clairvaux: "Shall not all our righteousness turn out to be mere unrighteousness and deficiency? What, then, shall it be concerning our sins, [b]when not even our righteousness can answer for itself?[/b] Wherefore...let us flee, with all humility to Mercy which alone can save our souls...whoever hungers and thirsts after righteousness, let him believe in thee, who "justified the ungodly"; and thus, [b]being justified by faith alone[/b], he shall have peace with God."

www.justforcatholics.org[/quote]
The Church agrees that justification is by grace (CCC 1996, 2010, ...).
[url="http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=justification+grace&s=SS"]http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis...tion+grace&s=SS[/url]
The Church has never said we are justified by works of the Law. Joe Mizzi isn't the best patrologist, especially since those quotes are on justification, not salvation by faith alone.

What I've read:
[quote][b]Clement of Rome[/b]
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, [b]being justified by works[/b] and not by words. . . . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? . . . So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4 [A.D. 110]).[/quote]
You first quote was out of context. Deeds play a part in justification.

[quote][b]Theophilus (Ignatius) of Antioch[/b]
Give studious attention to the prophetic writings, and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. He who gave the mouth for speech and formed the ears for hearing and made eyes for seeing will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality [b]by the patient exercise of good works[/b], he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things, which neither has eye seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man. For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries and fornications and homosexuality and avarice and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, and in the end such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire (To Autolycas 1:14 [ca. A.D. 181]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Clement of Alexandria[/b]
When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Origen[/b]
Whoever dies in his sins, [b]even if he profess to believe in Christ[/b], does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Cyprian[/b]
You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Aphracrtes[/b]
Great is the gift which he that is good has given to us. While not forcing us, and in spite of our sins he wants us to be justified. While he is in no way aided by our good works, he heals us that we may be pleasing in his sight. When we do not wish to ask of him, he is angry with us. He calls out to all of us constantly; "Ask and receive, and when you seek, you shall find" (Treatises 23:48 [A.D. 336-345]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Gregory of Nyssa[/b]
Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. F[b]aith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation[/b]; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).[/quote]

[quote][b]John Chrysostom[/b]
He that believes in the Son has everlasting life." Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,' someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?' [b]By no means![/b] Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven'; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1[circa A.D. 391]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Jerome[/b]
But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is evident that the just man lives by faith.' It should be noted that he does not say that a man, a person, lives by faith, lest it be thought that he is condemning good works. Rather, he says the 'just' man lives by faith. He implies thereby that whoever would be faithful and would conduct his life according to the faith can in no other way arrive at the faith or live in it except first he be a just man of pure life, coming up to the faith by certain degrees (Commentaries on Galatians 2:3:11 [A.D. 386]).[/quote]

[quote][b]Augustine[/b]
"He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification." What does this mean, "for our justification?" So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 [A.D. 416]).[/quote]
Source:
[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_justification.htm"]http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_justification.htm[/url]

Another good article with the support of the Fathers:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

It seems ironmonk or whoever else should have responses to these. These are all tired old quotes. I think Catholics here just find somehow their faith can be defended and assume it's been proven. phatcatholic and the archivers should move beyond text dropping links and such and into rebuttal sections. I don't think they tread into questioning the defenses or looking beyond them to other questions and inadequacies. I think you'd see for one that the early days were "protestant".. they were heterogeneous in their beliefs.

So


EDIT:

Ironmonk or someone. Ironmonk's challenge is for someone to find a reference in the Catechism. Then to find someone in the early church that conflicted with that.

I'm sure ITC could show you many different viewpoints held by various fathers of the church. (Catholics often talk about how early fathers were not infallible when beliefs don't match the Catholic Church... we all know that) That's how your challenge is presented.

So to focus, you must, or should be anyway, be looking for contradictions taught by different bishops of rome. (you even said we should be able to find contradictions if the Catholic Church is wrong)

[b]If that's the case, your challenge is decieving and perhaps flawed. [/b]


Moreover, can you give us the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the years back to Christ or at least for a long time for various points in the past? Instead of giving us links to the fathers in general you should be giving us links to the Catechisms of the past. That way we can expose any contradictions.

I don't think you can really do that. So I don't think we have any standard to gauge the contradictions.

Ironmonk needs to change his challenge and then say what counsil's and infallibles are the standards.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

dairygirl, with all do respect, i have no idea what you're talking about

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry Al. I edited it by the way. hope it helps!

[Quietfire]

Oh, please lets not start that whole "Whore of Babylon" thing again, could we give it a rest?

Oh, and btw, i happened to be doing some research on that specific topic tonight for someone in a cult (no really...a cult)

Wanna see it? Ok.
These are NON-CATHOLIC sites.....

{{stub}} Category:Ancient Rome Category:Roman Catholic Church

This is from a non-denomination site:(it listed itself as a non-denomination site)
It was common custom in the centuries before Christ for people in the Roman world to refer to the City of Rome itself as the "City of Seven Hills." The references are numerous and consistent. And indeed, when Romulus and Remus wanted to build a city in the area of the Tibur River (just inland from the coast to afford a greater protection for the city from sea pirates or from the naval warfare of hostile powers), it was divinely selected, in Roman parlance, that the city had to be on "seven hills." The number "seven" was a universal symbol that signified "completion" or "perfection," and the ancients who founded Rome wanted people to know that this particular city was destined to have a world influence and fame, and that it was no ordinary city that was being constructed in the eighth century B.C. The very fact, that Rome was designated "The Seven Hilled City" was significant enough to render it as a sacred and holy city that was designed to have world power and authority. This is one of the reasons the ancient people of the world always respected the City of Rome, whether they were its arch defenders and supporters or its enemies and were alien to its political and religious concepts. Even when the city in the time of the Empire finally grew beyond the strict limits of the "Seven Hills" (and reached out to embrace other hills in the vicinity and even hills on the other side of the Tibur River, such as Vatican Hill), the people for nostalgic reasons still retained the name of the city by its original designation: "the City of Seven Hills."

But strange as it may seem, the City of Jerusalem as it existed in the time of Christ Jesus was also reckoned to be the "City of Seven Hills." This fact was well recognized in Jewish circles. In the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, an eighth century midrashic narrative (section 10), the writer mentioned without commentary (showing that the understanding was well known and required no defense) that "Jerusalem is situated on seven hills" (recorded in The Book of Legends, edited by Bialik and Ravnitzky, p. 371, paragraph 111). And, so it was. Those "seven hills" are easy to identify. If one starts with the Mount of Olives just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives. The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One], the middle summit (hill) was called Nob [Hill Two], the highest point of Olivet itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13). On the middle ridge between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name), then the "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five] and then to the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six]. And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion." This makes "Seven Hills" in all.

This does not end the significance of "Seven Hills" for the urban areas that the ancients looked on as being the centers of divine sovereignty on this earth. We are all familiar with Babylon on the Euphrates (which became the capital of the world in the time of Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century B.C.) as being the "Seven Hilled City." And, it may be surprising for some to learn this, but when Constantine the emperor wanted to build a "new Rome" in the eastern part of the Roman Empire (because most of the economic life of the Roman Empire in the fourth century was centered in the eastern half of the Empire and he felt he needed a capital city much nearer the economic center of the Empire), he finally selected a spot on the Bosporus called Byzantium. The reason he selected this spot to be the "New Rome" was because it was a small village also located on "Seven Hills." This made "New Rome" as a City of Seven Hills.

What we observe is the fact that the ancients symbolically looked on the various capitals of the world as having "Seven Hills." The significance of this fact even had a meaning for the apostle John who, under the influence of Christ Jesus himself, wrote the Book of Revelation. We find that the last world capital would be "Mystery Babylon" and that it would have "seven mountains" (Revelation 17:9) associated with it. The fact that history has "Seven Hills" (or "Mountains") associated with FOUR world kingdoms: Babylon, Rome, Byzantium, and Jerusalem, there has been some confusion about which of these (or, perhaps, another "New City") was the intention of the apostle John who was writing for Christ Jesus in the Book of Revelation. The truth is, however, when one looks at the subject of the Book of Revelation carefully, there is only one of those "Cities of Seven Hills" that could possibly be the subject of the End-Time revelation. That is the City of Jerusalem. The "Mystery Babylon" of the Book of Revelation is none other than Jerusalem!

The last world kingdom will be headquartered in Jerusalem, not in Rome, Babylon on the Euphrates or in Byzantium, or anywhere else. The Antichrist will come to Jerusalem. He will look in all appearances as though he is none other than Christ Jesus himself. Remember, Satan and his angels will be expelled from heaven and come to earth (Revelation 12). The world will make a big mistake and think that Satan and his angels are none other than Christ and His angels returning from heaven at the Second Advent. This is the "great lie" the world will believe that the apostle Paul spoke about it Second Thessalonians 2:8-12. The world will think that Satan is none other than Christ. However, I have been telling you readers for over thirty years that the first person who claims to be the returned Christ to earth (even if great miracles are associated with him) IS the false Christ, called in other parts of the Holy Scriptures by the title of Antichrist. The false Christ will come to Jerusalem (the "City of Seven Hills") in order to rule the world, NOT to Rome in Italy!

The false Christ will come to a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem and his image will be placed in the Holy of Holies. He will point out that this is lawful to do in the Mosaic legislation (Exodus 25:18-22; 26:31; 36:8).


This is from Infoplease.com:
The Vatican City State is situated on the Vatican hill, on the right bank of the Tiber River, within the city of Rome.
(Keep in mind that the city of Rome outgrew its original boundries including across the Tiber.)

Edited August 9, 2004 by Quietfire

[Aloysius]

What? you want more material to attempt to proove wrong? Here are some catechisms, proove any part of any of em wrong
[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm"]Catechism[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/aindex.htm"]St. Thomas Aquinas's Catechism[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm"]Catechism of the Council of Trent[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bindex.htm"]Baltimore Catechism[/url]
[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/pius/pindex.htm"]Catechism of Pope St. Pius X[/url]

proove them to contradict
[url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]These[/url] or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]These[/url] or [url="http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/"]This[/url]

It's very simple, you have tons of material and all you have to do is proove one thing taught by that material is contrary to the consensus of the Early Church Fathers or the Scriptures.

[Aloysius]

[quote]I'm sure ITC could show you many different viewpoints held by various fathers of the church. (Catholics often talk about how early fathers were not infallible [b]when beliefs don't match the [Catholic Church's Teaching]... [/b]we all know that) That's how your challenge is presented. [/quote]

Where do the ECF beliefs not match us? That's what the entire challenge is based on: PROOVE the ECF's beliefs are contradictory to the teaching of the Catholic Church which is centered in the city of the Holy Martyrs Ss. Peter and Paul

[dairygirl4u2c]

You have never heard someone say that a particular belief held by the ECF is not representative of the Catholic Church because it is wrong because they are fallible? I'm sure you have. All I'd have to do is find one person who held a belief contradicting the Catholic Church's. (unless they were all infallible) How am I suppose to know the consensus in order to disprove it?

Maybe it's not so much the church fathers we're looking at as the counsils of those days and the infallibles of the bishop of rome. (so we should finally say what is and is not infallible!) But thanks, those catechisms are cool and a good place to start!

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

now there it is: we can proove a consensus. just ask ironmonk: he'll proove consensuses left and right of Church Fathers aggreeing with Catholocism. the challenge is for you to find in the writings of the Church Fathers something that contradicts Catholic Teaching. Everyone on PhatMass has seen this challenge has been around for some time and we have never seen anyone provide such evidence. just quote the writings of the ECFs and the Scriptures showing how they both contradict the Catechism.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 8 2004, 10:34 PM'] Being disrespectful, eh?

Revelation 17

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. 2With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."
3Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5This title was written on her forehead: [b]MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH[/b]. 6I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.
7When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. 8The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.
9"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. 10They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. 11The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.
12"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. 13They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings--and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers."
15Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. 18The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

I'm noticing an interesting correlation with the title given to the whore in v.4 with the title given by the Apostle St. Peter to the city of ROME in 1 Peter 5:13

She who is in [b]Babylon[/b], chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. [/quote]
I do not understand how you fall for the most basic anti-Catholic attacks now. Which I know you have had to seen this attack on the Church covered in depth on this board before.

Mystery Babylon...
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_the_Whore_of_Babylon.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Hunting_th..._of_Babylon.asp[/url]


It's like you have forgotten the answer to 2 + 2, with some of the attacks you are attempting at.


According to your statements about the Catholic Church, you say that the Church established by Christ lost it's way. Which is impossible because Christ said that it would never be overcome.

So, you will of course say that we've got the word "Church" wrong... but your fallacy is braught to light by anyone who knows a little about scripture ryan.

But before we go to scripture - the only One Faith that teaches what the Apostles
taught is the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church had the authority to give us Scripture because they are the ONLY teaching Authority for the Word of God and Christ did not come and take it away like He did to the Jewish Authority. Christ stated that it wouldn't be overcome.

I'm beginning to think the reason why you fell so easily to mustbe is because you don't know the bible well enough.... and of course the Catholic faith. You really should just stop debating and bury your nose in the bible and read it at least four more times, take notes, and in your notes group the verses by subject... and read the writings of the ECF's you quote from if you REALLY want to know what the answer is because you'll become Catholic again, then you won't be Catholic again because you forget to easily.... or because you just like to argue and don't care about the Truth.... or because you are not good with math word problems and logic.


Now, back to Scripture and what the Apostle's taught the pillar and foundation of truth since you fail to rebut anything else on the thread.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15), The Church is the One Faith, in unity of the Apostles (Eph 4:1-6). The Church will be guided in all truth (St. John 14).

That being stated, for the bible to be true, there must be One True Church. Because if what you stated was true that the protestant church believers are the "church" (Ekklesia) spoken of in the bible, then how could they be guided in Truth because they all are different faiths.... NOT one faith in unity. We do not see all the heads of the their churches getting together to discuss matters of faith (Acts 15:6-31). They all preach a different Gospel, they all have doctrines of man, their theology is playing shake n bake with Catholicism and luther, calvin, knox, etc... They left the group (Acts 20:29-30) HOW CAN THEY BE COUNTED AS THE GROUP? (They can only by the Catholic teaching on ignorance).

And as for what you call my "Roman Catholic" view of Scripture....

You are wrong.

From age 8 to 18, I read the bible on my own, and NEVER went to Mass.... TELL ME, how is my view of Scripture because I'm a Catholic... It's not... My view of scripture is the way it is because I spent hundreds of hours taking notes when I read the bible. I grouped the verses in my notes by topic. Then, when I was 15 a light turned on in my head and I realized that there was only One True Church. I thought I better find it because I want to change for Christ. So I studied which one was first because that would be the only One, because Christ said so. Then I learned through unbias sources that the Catholic Church was first, I thought since I was baptized Catholic, I had all I needed and kept studying on my own for the next few years.... but that's another topic....




IF YOU ARE NOT INFALLIBLE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT THE Catholic Church IS WRONG. The only moral right you have is to say that you disagree.

Sad funny how that other totally contradicting faiths are considered ok by you but not the Catholic Church.... because when you take out the error of the major protestant churches, you are left with partial Catholicism....

if you took out the parts of protestant teachings that agreed with Catholicism from the major protestant churches, you would be left with 90% of Catholic teachings.... but the Catholic Church can't be the Church of the bible....

Some protestants believe in Purgatory, some don't
Some protestants believe Mary as our spiritual Mother, some don't
Some protestants believe Mary Ever Virgin, some don't
Some protestants believe in the Trinity, some don't
Some protestants believe the Catholic Church was first and Peter was the first Pope, some don't
Some protestants believe using statues, some don't
Some protestants believe the Eurcharist, some don't
etc, etc, etc....

[color=blue][i]but the Catholic Church did give us the New Testament, because it "WAS" guided by the Holy Spirit, but it lost it's authority sometime between 405 AD and the 1500's... because Luther, Calvin, Knox, and some other people said so... Christ didn't come down or anything, but Christ was wrong about the Church being guided in all truth, and never being overcome....[/i][/color]

What kind of sense does that make? None.

The glove don't fit man...



Prove the Catholic Church wrong in any one point and you would have proved the Catholic Church wrong altogether.

Refer to my previous posts and please provide rebuttal with logic, references, historical writings (WITH REFS), etc...

Or pick a topic you want explained in further detail

Or stop trying to debate with anyone and do the homework... group the Scripture verses by topic in notes, read the ECF - which are the trustworthy men that the Apostles taught.





But... then again, you believe that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit until sometime after they produced us the New Testament... So, let's keep it to quotes from the Early Church Fathers [u][b]before[/b][/u] 410 AD... that sounds reasonable... Surely if what you say is true, then we can determine the true Church by their teachings....


So, here goes, and I'll even provide a link so that you can go read them in their entirerty.



ECF on Church/Pope/Real Pressence/Salvation - Please note that these are some of the very men you quoted from:


Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm[/url]


Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop, and trustworthy man who was a pupil of St. John the Apostle)


"Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you" (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm[/url]


You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm[/url]


Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm[/url]


Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm[/url]



Justin Marter

"We have learned from the prophets and we hold it as true that punishments and chastisements and good rewards are distributed according to the merit of each man’s actions. Were this not the case, and were all things to happen according to the decree of fate, there would be nothing at all in our power. If fate decrees that this man is to be good and that one wicked, then neither is the former to be praised nor the latter to be blamed" (First Apology 43 [A.D. 151]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm[/url]


St. Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]


The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]


"[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care" (Against Heresies 4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm[/url]




Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm[/url]


Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm[/url]


St. Augustine

But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 [A.D. 416]).

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701044.htm[/url]


St. Augstine has many many writings that can teach you a lot. He was one of the Bishops involved in Canonizing the New Testament... The Holy Spirit worked through him... Please read some of what he had to say about St. John 14:

Tractate 67 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701067.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701067.htm[/url] (John 14:1-3)
Tractate 68 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701068.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701068.htm[/url] (John 14:1-3)
Tractate 69 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701069.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701069.htm[/url] (John 14:4-6)
Tractate 70 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701070.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701070.htm[/url] (John 14:7-10)
Tractate 71 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701071.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701071.htm[/url] (John 14:10-14)
Tractate 72 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701072.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701072.htm[/url] (John 14:10-14)
Tractate 73 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701073.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701073.htm[/url] (John 14:10-14)
Tractate 74 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701074.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701074.htm[/url] (John 14:15-17)
Tractate 75 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701075.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701075.htm[/url] (John 14:18-21)
Tractate 76 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701076.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701076.htm[/url] (John 14:22-24)
Tractate 77 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701077.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701077.htm[/url] (John 14:25-27)
Tractate 78 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701078.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701078.htm[/url] (John 14:27-28)
Tractate 79 [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701079.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701079.htm[/url] (John 14:29-31)

See them all at: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm[/url]




Please, for the love of Christ and truth, go to the many links above, read read read.... You don't need to reply, but save the links in your favorites, print them all out... But do the study, strengthen your knowledge and understanding of Scripture... Then, let's talk.


God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

On closer inspection, those catechisms are just from 1200 ish and on. So they're basically what exists now.

So you admit your religion is just a God breathed consensus?

Why don't you or ironmonk just admit that using the church fathers wasn't such a great idea and try to figure out what the infallibles throughout history are. That way we can see if we can prove the contradictions or ask why you chose the ones you did etc.

Majority opininon even if it was from the olden days is not the religion for me.

Edited August 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[MorphRC]

ICTHUS.

I find it ironic that you have:

[b]@ Ironmonk - All Roman Catholics are wrong about what the Bible teaches. Think for yourself. [/b]

As your signature, yet use the oldest Protestant lie. Maybe you should take your own advice.