Why have we "protestants" turned our back completely on Catholicism?

3,990 Views | 67 Replies | Last: 21 yr ago by
Guadaloop474
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OPIE03 - Here is a rebuttal to your anti-Catholic taking points. If you take a look, you will see that Catholics really do follow what's in the Bible.

The doctrine of Purgatory, and the associated practices of praying for the dead
It’s in 2 Maccabbees, which Luther threw out. It’s also hinted at in Matthew 5:26 - truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny. (released from where)? Jesus also went to speak to the spirits in prison after his death (1 Peter 3:19)


The practice of praying to dead people other than Jesus
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Luke 20:38). Revelations 5:8 says that these supposed dead people present our prayers to the Lord – “ And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;”


The belief that Jesus is either incapable of or unwilling to listen to our prayers unless they are brought to His attention by some dead person, such as a "saint" or Mary
No Catholic believes this. We pray straight to Jesus too. It’s just that in James 5:16, it says that The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects…And we know that while we are busy with other things, our intercessor saints in heaven continue to pray for us, thus multiplying our prayers.


The belief that entry into Heaven is conditional on having confessed sins to an earthly priest
We only believe what the Bible teaches in John 21-23 - Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
22: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


The belief that an earthly priest can forgive your sins in exchange for some works on your part (or, more on topic, in exchange for money -- the selling of such "indulgences" was what started the "protest" that made us "protestants" )
The selling of indulgences was wrong. No argument there.


The belief that the RCC is the only entity that can interpret Scripture (sounds to me like denial of the Holy Spirit, which is the only unpardonable sin)
Wrong – The Church is the pillar of truth, as outlined in the Bible – 1 Timothy 3:15 says "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."


The belief that RCC tradition is equal to Scripture in determining truth
You have to use tradition to interpret scripture – Otherwise you wind up with thousands of different interpretations of Sacred Scripture, when there is only 1 truth. That’s why you have thousands of “bible churches” all claiming to represent the truth, but they all believe differently. They can't all be right.


The "adoration" of Mary, which, no matter what they say, is tantamount to worship (why can't they see anyone but her in a cheese sandwich? )

No Catholic adores Mary. Giving her honor is no different than giving your mother on earth honor. Besides, Luke 1:46 says that her “soul magnifies the Lord”. Her soul is still around today, and it is still magnifying the Lord. Get close to Mary, and you will get close to Jesus. Just look what John Paul II accomplished with his life by getting close to Mary.


The use of idols, relics, etc., which are believed to have miraculous powers when touched, prayed to, etc. (including the "host" itself, which is "adored" and worshipped )

The Communion Host is the true Body of Christ. At the Last Supper, Jesus held up some bread and said “This IS My Body”. John 6:51-58 says - 51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
Concerning relics having miraculous powers, that's also scriptural-- Acts 19:11: And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,
12: so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them


The practice of closed communion, denying the Lord's table to sinners
– Paul says in 1rst Corinthians 11:27-30 --Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.


The belief that the Pope can be infallible, and is Christ's substitute on earth (see the definition of "Vicar" )
The pope is the successor to Peter. Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:18-19-"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."


The imagery of Jesus still on the cross, dying perpetually, versus the protestant empty cross, signifying His resurrection
1rst Corinthians 11:26 says 26: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


The use of canned, repetitive prayer (specifically condemned by Jesus)
In Revelations 4:8, it reads - And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"


[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 4/4/2005 6:06p).]

[This message has been edited by texasag73 (edited 4/4/2005 6:08p).]
HornByChoice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
HornByChoice replied, "The authority of the Bible is predicated on the authority of the Church that canonized it. If you feel that the Church has no authority, than the NT canon it developed has no authority."

Absolutely wrong! The authority of the Bible is predicated on the Spirit...
Yes, absolutely...and that Spirit worked thru the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, through her bishops (esp Justin Martyr, Clement, Cyril, Athanasius, and others) and her councils (ex. Laodicea) to separate the wheat from the chaff with regards to what was, and what was not, the inspired Word of God.
quote:
Sorry, but the Word of God didn't need an invention of man to have legitimacy and power.
Disregarding the "invention of man" comment I agree. Our Lord did not NEED to use the Church to define the NT canon, he CHOSE to use the Church. If our Lord would have wished to leave us the definitive NT canon...he could have just dropped one off at Pentecost. As it was though, He did not. Rather, He established a Church through His Apostles who delivered the canon to us.

[This message has been edited by HornByChoice (edited 4/4/2005 7:36p).]
TexasAggie_97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As far as communion is concerned I have always thought of it this way. Everything Jesus did had meaning and nothing he did was for show as that would have been prideful and thus sinful. As we all know Jesus was without sin. We must ask ourselves why Jesus chose to say eat this bread which is my body that will be given up for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. And why did he say drink from this cup which contains my blood the blood of the new covenant and more specifically why he chose to say this at the Last Supper. If he didn't believe it to be of extreme importance then why mention it at all in his last hours on earth? I chose to think everything Jesus did had meaning and the Sacrament of Communion is no different. If you don't believe his spirit can come down from Heaven and enter the bread and wine then you also cannot believe Jesus walks with you everyday. Additionally if you don't believe his spirit can come down from Heaven then you cannot believe he was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven. I know I am rambling on here but it really seems simple to me. I don't know why Protestants chose to ignore the power of Jesus and why they don't believe his spirit can come down from Heaven for Communion yet they have no problem believing he can come down to heal them when they are sick, etc.
Longstreet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I have posted this before, but I'll post it again because my comments are often easily ignored or forgotten.

Not to be harsh, but, there's a reason for that. The incredibly hostile tone of your posts doesn't do a whole lot for your credibility.



"You couldn't pay me to run into a burning house. I'm a VOLUNTEER."
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TAMU@EDS,

There was a thread a while back concerning the symbolism of the Last Supper from a Passover standpoint.

http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?forum_id=15&topic_id=326840

To give a short version, Jesus held up the Third Cup of Passover (Redemption) and claimed it was His blood. In other words, His blood redeems. The bread was the middle of three pieces that each represent God. Up to that point, Jesus had only called himself the Son of God. By claiming His body as one of the breads, He said He was God. That could be why so many people left after hearing this, rather than a disbelief of transmutation.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tonka, you're on the right path. Keep fighting the good fight and you will progress in your faith, whatever label you place on in it.
ord04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice post Texasag73. Opie seems decidedly bitter and misinformed.

There are alot of people who claim to "know" the Bible. Reading it is one thing, but understanding why certain books where written, what was the audience and when they were written is also important to develop the whole picture of the Spirits influence on teh Bible. Also, do you not realize that there were many other books that were written that didn't make the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was the Catholic church that ultimately chose the books which make up our Bible
The Lone Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
texag73, nice post. I don't agree with all of your conclusions, but I appreciate the clarifications.
Ft Worth Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The authority of the Bible is predicated on the authority of the Church that canonized it. If you feel that the Church has no authority, than the NT canon it developed has no authority.


quote:
Yes, absolutely...and that Spirit worked thru the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, through her bishops (esp Justin Martyr, Clement, Cyril, Athanasius, and others) and her councils (ex. Laodicea) to separate the wheat from the chaff with regards to what was, and what was not, the inspired Word of God.


Remember the Bible was put together for a purpose and it was not because the early church fathers wanted to show their authority and their power. They were combating “heresy” on a variety of levels – who God was, who Christ was, what is the church, what was God’s purpose, etc. It was set-up to show what was catholic and orthodox, and that the extra revelations by some groups to add to the Gospel were INCORRECT.

Roman Catholics like to come back to this point where the early church “authorized” the canonization of the Bible into the format we know it today (minus those few books not present in a Protestant Bible), but since a particular point in time after the canonization, the church runs not only with the Bible but also Tradition. Why should there be additional revelations through the “flowering” of Traditions when the early church said these books were necessary to understand and know God? There are instances where Tradition runs against the Bible, and hence where the conflict arises. Use history as a guide to see the “flowering”. I see texasag73 has such examples shown in a response at the top of this page to show some of these conflicts.


quote:
Disregarding the "invention of man" comment I agree. Our Lord did not NEED to use the Church to define the NT canon, he CHOSE to use the Church. If our Lord would have wished to leave us the definitive NT canon...he could have just dropped one off at Pentecost. As it was though, He did not. Rather, He established a Church through His Apostles who delivered the canon to us.


I too agree the Bible is NOT an invention of man, but the rest of the comment is highly suspect. The message of Christ altered slightly with the impending rapture to where one must live a life from cradle to grave. The early Christians were waiting for the second coming and as time elapsed, a pre-millennial outlook was replaced with formalized doctrines to combat those elements who claimed to either be Christians (but were not) or a those who had a new revelation of what God wanted (which was neither Christian nor catholic/orthodox). The early Christians did not need the Bible, so why would the Trinitarian God drop one off when he provided the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? The whole paragraph is suspect because it makes light of the events of the time.

quote:
The belief that an earthly priest can forgive your sins in exchange for some works on your part (or, more on topic, in exchange for money -- the selling of such "indulgences" was what started the "protest" that made us "protestants"
The selling of indulgences was wrong. No argument there.


Indulgence is more than having Tetzel running around saying, “Every time a coin hits the bottom of the board, a soul is released from Purgatory.” Indulgences can also mean objects, pilgrimages, Crusades, so on and so forth. Though Catholics like to think today that indulgences are remission of temporal punishments due to sin, the medieval church did not. In fact, the indulgence issue was really the catalyst to the schism in the Western Church between the Catholics and the Reformers.


"Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God." - William Carey

"Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible Mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematise those whom we defend. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or our own in that of others; and recipocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing to Emperor Constantine

EDIT - added the word "not" to one of the paragraphs above.

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 4/5/2005 8:47a).]

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 4/5/2005 9:52a).]
HornByChoice
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
They were combating “heresy” on a variety of levels – who God was, who Christ was, what is the church, what was God’s purpose, etc. It was set-up to show what was catholic and orthodox, and that the extra revelations by some groups to add to the Gospel were INCORRECT.
Yes..and what did those early church fathers, the one's led by God in matters of the canon, believe about who God was, who Christ was, what the church is, and what Christ's purpose was? If they were led by our Lord in such a way as to determine what was and was not His Word, surely they were also led to Truth in their teachings on other aspects of the Faith.
quote:
There are instances where Tradition runs against the Bible, and hence where the conflict arises.
Tradition does not run against the Bible, the Bible is part of Tradition.
quote:
I too agree the Bible is an invention of man
I never said the Bible was an "invention of man".
Ft Worth Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Tradition does not run against the Bible, the Bible is part of Tradition.


That is the center point of the argument. Catholics see Tradition and the another tradition called the Bible to be hand in hand, but with Tradition more as a dominant role than the other tradition. Protestants see Tradition to be accountable to the tradition called the Bible, and that interpretation can vary greatly depending if something is explicitly forbidden or implicitly granted (example being the Anglicans verses the Puritans).

quote:
I never said the Bible was an "invention of man".


My mistake because I left off the word “not” in my response. Oopps.

quote:
If they were led by our Lord in such a way as to determine what was and was not His Word, surely they were also led to Truth in their teachings on other aspects of the Faith.


But not when Tradition runs a counter against to what is said in the Bible. This comment shows that Tradition is the dominant element between the two, where the second is the Bible. The Protestant argument is that the Bible was set as being the a physical sign to what the Gospel was – it was complete and inerrant in terms of Salvation (not touching the modern scientific hoopla here). If the Gospel in the Bible was sufficient to combat Gnostic teachings, specifically the hidden knowledge that there is more than the Bible, then why is Tradition not held up to the same standard? The early Gnostics held church positions also and they were run-off by those catholic and orthodox believers.


"Expect great things from God; attempt great things for God." - William Carey

"Every year, nay every moon, we make new creeds to describe invisible Mysteries. We repent of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematise those whom we defend. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves or our own in that of others; and recipocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's ruin." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing to Emperor Constantine

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 4/5/2005 9:45a).]

[This message has been edited by Ft Worth Ag (edited 4/5/2005 9:56a).]
StephenvilleAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fascinating thread.

I knew an old lady in Brownwood (Tx) who was a staunch Southern Baptist, and she believed Catholics are not Christians.

I have a neighbor / co-worker / good friend who is Catholic. He told me the Catholic Church is the only true Christian church, that all others are false, and if you aren't Catholic you won't get to heaven.

Wouldn't it be interesting if on judgement day, Jesus says he doesn't really care which church you attended or even if you attended church much at all.

I'm sort of hoping that is the way it goes, otherwise I'm gonna be in big trouble.
Tonka76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Wouldn't it be interesting if on judgement day, Jesus says he doesn't really care which church you attended or even if you attended church much at all.


I have a feeling that is exactly the way its going to be.

that said...IMO church attendance is very important...
The Lone Stranger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tonka76, I have a feeling that heaven holds many surprises for all of us.
Alpha and Omega
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In "heaven," none of these questions will matter any longer. It will not be necessary for our Savior to affirm or deny our viewpoints regarding His grace here on this earth. Presence in heaven will make those explanations completely unnecessary. We will be in His presence, that is ALL that is important!
StephenvilleAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
alpha-omega: yeah, unless it turns out that we're just a college science project for some kid who belongs to a vastly superior race of alien beings.

Tonka76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Tonka76, I have a feeling that heaven holds many surprises for all of us.



ok.
Guadaloop474
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would add that "traditionally", going to church on the Lord's Day is how one keeps holy the Lord's day, in addition to doing no unnecessary work.
TexasAggie_97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To get back to the original question of "Why have we "Protestants" turned our back completely on Catholicism?" I will answer because you are all heathens. Just kidding of course but I think it may be because for the most part because it is easier to be Protestant than it is to be Catholic. Catholicism is very rigid religion based on a lot of sacrifice and structure. Of course I am speaking of things like marriage being forever, observing Lent and not eating meat on Fridays during that time, etc. While each of these in and of itself may not seem like a great sacrifice when you add them all together they can become burdensome. Of course religion is supposed to be hard not easy and it is supposed to make you sacrifice things that we would otherwise like to do such as adultery, theft, cheating, etc. Of course as I stated this is my opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.
Tonka76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Just kidding of course but I think it may be because for the most part because it is easier to be Protestant than it is to be Catholic. Catholicism is very rigid religion based on a lot of sacrifice and structure. Of course I am speaking of things like marriage being forever, observing Lent and not eating meat on Fridays during that time, etc. While each of these in and of itself may not seem like a great sacrifice when you add them all together they can become burdensome.



I still dont understand your thinking on this topic. It seems to me that you are giving Catholics way too much credit for their "sacrifice" during lent. I think its probably harder to remember not too eat meat on Fridays than the actual act of not eating meat. And every Protestant church I have gone to expects your marriage to last forever and its pretty clear that in both denominations they dont always last a year much less forever.

I can pretty much say that "ease" of worship has nothing to do with this discussion...IMHO
TxAgg07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As a Catholic I believe that alot of Protestants have turned their backs on Catholicism (sp) because alot of people don't take the time to understand it. Growing up you always, at least I did, catch crap from people because all they knew about it was the misconceptions that are passed around.
StephenvilleAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TxAg07: for the most part, it's a fine religion with an excellent laity, many of whom are salt of the earth and good practitioners of the teachings of Jesus.

But on the negative side: its hierarchy, its authoritarianism, its secrecy, and some of its clergy.

Some Protestant churches have developed those same problems, too.

Like many Americans, I never turned my back on Catholicism. My Huguenot ancestors courageously risked their lives & and made that decision four centuries ago.



[This message has been edited by StephenvilleAg77 (edited 4/6/2005 2:10a).]
TexasAggie_97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tonka76, don't take my words too seriously as my post was in jest. I do however hold to my belief that Catholicism is more difficult, in general, to follow than Protestantism. My examples were just a few and not meant to be exhaustive by any means. You are correct that in many cases the sacrifices are not all that difficult but they are sacrifices all the same. I do take issue with the Sacrament of marriage though. I do not believe the Protestant churches place the same value on marriage as the Catholic Church does. I don't have the stats to back this up but I would bet there is a much higher failure rate among non-Catholic marriages simply because there is not a punishment for dissolving the union. You can get married, divorced, married, divorced, etc again and again in Protestant churches and that is simply not an option in the Catholic church. If you get divorced without going through the proper procedures you can never be re-married in the Catholic Church. The problem, IMHO, is that the Protestant church seems to have forgotten what the Sacrament of marriage is, a gift from GOD. When GOD gives you something you should not be so quick to throw it away. There are of course exceptions for dissolving a marriage such as spousal abuse, child abuse, etc but those are the not the major reasons why people get divorced. I am rambling on here but much like you I am passionate about my religion. I hope I have not offended you because that was not my intent but you asked a question and I am trying to answer it the way I best see fit.

bigdaddybrutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For those 12 guys 2000 years ago it was a LOT harder to follow Jesus than keep doing what everyone else expected of them with regards to their faith and their religious practices.

I really like the idea that was expressed earlier about Jesus not being so concerned with what church one belongs to. That is really quite profound and should give us a great deal to meditate on. The reason I believe that is due to the fact that Catholics and Protestants agree that doing something for the sake of worldly credit (or just for the sake of doing it alone) is completely fruitless. (I do believe that this thought is scriptural)

What is important is that we respond to God. When God teaches we must listen. When God asks us to do something, then we must do it. You get the idea. When Catholics, like any other Christian, do something (ie. Abstaining from meat on Fridays) then they can do it by the grace of God, or they can do it on their own. The latter would be apart, or separated from God. This is not in keeping with what God wants because it denies His grace that gives us the power to act with holiness as well as giving [false] credit to our own selves. When we submit our sacrifices, our work, etc. to God then we are cooperating with Him.

So, getting back to the meeting of Christ Jesus in the afterlife I think He will be much more concerned with what we did with Him/through Him than what we did out of a sense of worldly obligation or something like that. As a Catholic I would LOVE the whole world to be Catholic…one big happy family…but in reality it seems much more prudent that each man be faithful to what the Lord lays upon his heart.

In the end, by the grace of God, we WILL all be unified. Be it here on earth, or in Heaven…


+U+I+O+G+D+
Guadaloop474
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does anybody fast anymore?

Texasag73
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I do however hold to my belief that Catholicism is more difficult, in general, to follow than Protestantism.


Maybe if you limit your scope to physical acts and necessities I would agree with you. However, in Catholicism the Church has Authority. Catholics do not need to know the Scriptures, because the Church has the Scriptures and they have the Church. It is an effective displacement of responsibility. IMO, this is why many Catholics do not read the Bible much. They do not have to.

Compare that to a Baptist Church. The pastor gives you the basics about Christ and salvation. Then he gives you a Bible and says "get to it." The pastor never claims to be always right, and never claims to have all the answers. He only claims that the Bible does have all the answers, and that you have to find them there. Your spiritual growth and search for answers are completely dependent on your ability to discern a two to five thousand year old book written originally in other languages.

I am not making an judgements on which style is better. Both styles could also be very easy or very difficult depending on your walk. I just think the average Baptist has a more difficult personal experience.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Regarding just "get to it" with the Bible, please see: http://catholicoutlook.com/questions.php
Guadaloop474
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In the Catholic Church, there are 3 readings each Sunday during the Liturgy of the Word:

One from the Old Testament
One from the epistles
One from the Gospels

These three readings are all tied together by a common thread - healing, salvation, the eucharist, etc.

The sermon is SUPPOSED to be about these three readings, but sadly, there is little good preaching in most Catholic churches that help to explain the three readings.

The Catholic Church does have many fine Bible study programs, like the Little Rock Scripture study, Fathercorapi.com, claretiantapeministry.com, etc. What it doesn't have is a lot of people feeling the need to understand Holy Scripture. And that is sad, since we will all be held accountable to every word in it.

Texasag73
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA,

I have that website bookmarked, and I really enjoy it. The "get to it" I mentioned directly from my personal experience in Baptist Churches.

The only point I was trying to make is that Catholics already have an standard interpretation of the Bible. They do not have to interpret it. If you follow the Catholic teachings and Sacraments, you do not have to read the Bible regularly. It is still encouraged to read the Bible to understand why the Church says what it says, but it is not absolutely necessary.

Protestants have uncertainty and responsibility. Catholics have certainty and Authority. Protestants submit to a Book and a Spirit. Catholics submit to a Spirit and a Church. Do not assume it is easy to be a Protestant.

Texag73,
I agree completely.

[This message has been edited by ramblin_ag02 (edited 4/7/2005 10:28a).]
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
02, I offered that particular page on that site as a dissent from the proposition that studying the Bible is sufficient in and of itself ("go to it".
What did you think of the Bible-related questions there?

Also, you might check the home page under "Topics" and take a look at the various "Bible" pages. You may find that what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the Bible is rather different than your assertation......
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
74OA,
I was specifically trying to avoid a Sola Scriptura argument. I was only pointing out the differences in teaching methods as I see the ends of the spectrum.

His Bible commentary is very informed and informative. I specifically like the directed rebuttals of some anti-Catholic talking points. I had many of those questions already, and his discussion of them was very informative.

The back and forth discussions were entertaining as well. However, sometimes an argument only proves who is a better arguer. I think that is the case in some of these discussions. He is a very smart and fluent arguer, and many he argues with are not.

As far as what the Catholic Church teaches about the Bible, I was speaking from my limited perception. I was trying to explain the well-known phenomenon that Sola Scripturists are generally more Bible literate than Catholics. It is because that is all they have.
74OA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gotcha....
bigdaddybrutus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texasag73 I read your post on study programs.

I found that the Navarre Bible series from Four Courts Press is a fantastic tool to both learn the scriptures as well as what the teachings of the Church are. Check out the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology at http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/index.cfm to get some awesome resources for understanding the scriptures. Scott Hahn links up with them from his site, great stuff.


+U+I+O+G+D+
Guadaloop474
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks bigdaddybrutus..The Navarre Bible is the most explanatory Bible out there.

If anyone enjoys listening to Bible study when you are commuting, two excellent sources of either tapes and CD's on numerous Bible topics are

http://www.fathercorapi.com/

and

http://claretiantapeministry.org/

Both Father Corapi and Father Hampsch have turned my daily commute from a drudgery into a faith filled learning center. Highly recommend both.

Texasag73
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.