The Scriptures say that the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that if we don't hear the Church (Matt 18:17) we should be treated as heathen.

Yet some people say we should neglect the Church and listen to Scripture alone?

Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?

Galveston1

All this shows the great division between the RC and the rest of Christendom. We simply do not believe that the RC is THE Church. We believe that the Scriptures are our complete guide for all things spiritual; that no man has the right to change or add to them.
I don't want to appear hateful, so let me state here that I do not hate Catholics, I see them as deceived.
I personally firmly believe that the RC is one of the oldest, largest cults in the world.
What did the first Chuch look like? Its members healed the sick supernaturally, cast out devils, raised the dead (In come cases). They were given directions from God via the Holy Spirit by tongues & interpretatiion or by word of prophecy. They knew things because the Holy Spirit told them. You only find such things today in the pentecostal movement. (I agree that it is sorely diminished from the Book of Acts, but there are remnants where these things still take place.) For Bible reference see 1 Corinthians Ch 12.

Several major things cause me to reject the RC as the Church.
1. Their rejection of Scripture as absolute authority.
2. Their deification of Mary. (I honor Mary for her unique position in God's plan)
3. Their doctrine of trans substantiation; that the wafer and wine are ACTUALLY the body and blood of Jesus. If it is indeed the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus, then it is an object of worship, and is a form of idolatry. (If you doubt it you need to read Charles Chiniquy's book)
Again, I repeat, I do not hate Catholics, and I find myself in agreement with DeMaria many times, but not here.

Wangdoodle

1. Scripture alone is not supported by Scripture alone. And the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture.
2. The Catholic Church does not teach that Mary is divine.
3. The early Christians understood the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).

Fr_Chuck

Also one of the issues I don't think was addressed was for the first several hundred years there was no official "scripture" one church may have had one or two writings, another church had 4 or 5 but 2 of them were not the ones that were finally on the approved list. And for the first 20 and 30 years there was no written word at all.

The Church was always the beleivers and the spoken word of God. The written word gives us the guidline to compare out conduct and actions by, and to compare the actions of others to be sure they are following the word of God. But it is easy to see from the scripture that the Church was for more than any written word.

Tj3

We hear this a lot, but believers were never without scripture. For example:

2 Tim 3:14-15
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

Yes, this refers to the OT, but note that even in the OT we have everything that we needed to know about the gospel. The NT provides clarity regarding the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the gospel but has not not added anything which is not covered in the OT.

When Jesus Himself sought to validate a point of doctrine in discussion, where did He refer? To scripture. Do we then consider any source to be more authoritative than that which Jesus considered authoritative?

We are further commanded not to go beyond what was written:

1 Cor 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV

Yes, men may preach and may speak on doctrine, but no man is permitted to go beyond what is written.

sndbay

This is the first time I have seen or heard the Catholic view point applied this way. It has always been contary to what my friend that are Catholic tell me. And the Lurtheran church too, that I have known. My Catholic friends have always added that the priest of the church is the only one that can make the request in prayer. That is why going to any other Christian church leaves me out of receiving what Christ offered. Which I strongly disagree.
Is it likely that different division has occured in the Catholic church that changes thes from one teaching to another? I have seen this placement within the Lurtheran church.

With all this discussion, Amen to the agreement, that we do not hate the Catholic church or any Christian teaching of Truth. The belief of our Lord and Savior Christ. And to causion the stumblingblock of another is a sin . Making unclean what God has cleaned.

arcura

sndbay,
Justin was a priest. He could consecrated the bread and wine so that the Holy Spirit would change it into the body and blood of Christ Jesus just as other priests can.
Jesus is the high priest and it was He who commanded His priests (apostles) to do that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

sndbay

My opinion and belief of this would be as the scriptures tell us..

1 Corinthians 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

We are to eat and digest this all as Truth of the sacrifice Christ made, and belief in knowing Christ was worthy in delivering us forgiveness.

N0help4u

Yeah it doesn't clearly state if it is literally transfigured in the Catholic sense or symbolically

sndbay

By eating and drinking you are taking all in as being one in flesh with Christ.

Jesus talked of the water and drinking it. The water He had to offer.

arcura

sndbay,well said,'Here is what Jesus said.....
John4:7. When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Give me something to drink."
8. His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.
9. The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew. How is it that you ask me, a Samaritan, for something to drink?", Jews, of course, do not associate with Samaritans.
10. Jesus replied to her:
If you only knew what God is offering
and who it is that is saying to you,
`Give me something to drink,"
you would have been the one to ask,
and he would have given you living water.

11. `You have no bucket, sir," she answered, "and the well is deep: how do you get this living water?
12. Are you a greater man than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself with his sons and his cattle?"
13. Jesus replied:
Whoever drinks this water
will be thirsty again;

14. but no one who drinks the water that I shall give
will ever be thirsty again:
the water that I shall give
will become a spring of water within, welling up for eternal life.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)