[Fr_Chuck]

The Catholic Church does not even use the English version for its usage, This concept was accepted, believed and taught before there was even an English translation. They used the original greek text.
And of course it is not just the Catholic that accept this teachings, the Orthodox, many of the Anglican groups, the Lutheran groups ( at least in the early teachings of the church) and more.
It is in fact the smaller number and newer denominations that teach this is not this way. Who often use the English translations as their base without going to the early greek.

[Wondergirl]

The Lutherans do not accept the pope as the head of the church. They do not believe that Peter was the first pope.

[Wangdoodle]

Something that I will often do is look at what the early Christians understood about various matters. It should not be ignored that the early Christians understood apostolic succession and tradition. St. Irenaeus gave witness to this in the second century, and St. Cyprian in the third.

Irenaeus, Adversus haereses

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Cyprian, The Unity of the Church

And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.

[Tj3]

Many things have been taught in the past. I could show you early teachings that disagree with you, but that is where the key issue is - when we have conflciting teachings between church traditiion/denominational teachings and what scripture teaches, which do we hold to be the standard which determines what is right?

I chose to stick with the Bible, which we know to be God's word. Teachings of men can fail, even church fathers (Paul had to rebuke Peter, for example), but God's word will never fail.

[De Maria]

Many things have been taught in the past. I could show you early teachings that disagree with you, but that is where the key issue is - when we have conflciting teachings between church traditiion/denominational teachings and what scripture teaches, which do we hold to be the standard which determines what is right?

You've explained the problem incorrectly. There is no conflict between Church and Scripture. Indeed, the Church canonized the Old Testament and wrote the New.

The conflict is between Church Tradition which includes Scripture and individual interpretation.

I chose to stick with the Bible, which we know to be God's word. Teachings of men can fail, even church fathers (Paul had to rebuke Peter, for example), but God's word will never fail.

Scripture is clear that the Church is the standard:

Matt 18:17, "take him to the Church, if he does not hear the Church treat him as a heathen."

1 Tim 3:15 "The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

You've explained the problem incorrectly. There is no conflict between Church and Scripture. Indeed, the Church canonized the Old Testament and wrote the New.

You are using the word "church" differently than in scripture - your denomination never existed when scripture was written.

The conflict is between Church Tradition which includes Scripture and individual interpretation.

Your denominational tradition is not scriptural and must be tested by using scripture. No private interpretation is permitted, and that includes by memebers of your denomination.

Scripture is clear that the Church is the standard:

Matt 18:17, "take him to the Church, if he does not hear the Church treat him as a heathen."

1 Tim 3:15 "The Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

Again, this argues against you. Matthew 18 is speaking of any church not your denomination which did not exist, and is referring to disciplinary matters, not how to determine truth in doctrine.

1 Tim 3:15 does not refer to a denomination but rather the body of Christ.

What does scripture say?

Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
NKJV

So we see that individuals who "overcome" are the pillars.

[De Maria]

You are using the word "church" differently than in scripture - your denomination never existed when scripture was written.

Show me how?

Matt 16:18 shows that Jesus Christ established a Church with authority to bind and loose.

Matt 18:17 which states that the Church has authority to settle disputes and discipline Her members.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Church is only defined as a body of believers, but there is more than one definition for the word as is clear in Scripture.

Your denominational tradition is not scriptural and must be tested by using scripture.

You've yet to provide the evidence that Scripture is the only test. But Scripture shows that the Church has the authority to resolve disputes. And history shows that when two parties dispute over how to interpret Scripture, the Church is the authority to which they have appealed.

No private interpretation is permitted, and that includes by memebers of your denomination.

We don't interpret the Scriptures privately. We interpret in accordance with the Spirit of the Church which is evidenced in Her Traditions.

I've asked you before, how do you keep from interpreting the Scriptures privately since you have nothing upon which to stand?

When I go to interpret Scripture, I say to myself, what did the Fathers of the Church teach?

Luther is an excellent example of an individual who interpreted the Scriptures privately. He taught Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture or in the Traditions of the Church through the centuries.

Again, this argues against you. Matthew 18 is speaking of any church not your denomination which did not exist, and is referring to disciplinary matters, not how to determine truth in doctrine.

There was only one Church in existence at the time and the Catholic Church is the largest Church which can trace Herself to that time. Certainly no confession resulting from the Protestant reformation can trace itself to the Apostles.

And this verse does not say, "except in matters of doctrine". It does not give any exceptions.

1 Tim 3:15 does not refer to a denomination but rather the body of Christ.

But 1 Tim 3:15 explicitly states "the Church". And only the Ancient Churches which trace themselves to the Apostles accept this blessing from God. Only the Ancient Churches consider themselves "Pillars of Truth". Of these, the Catholic Church is the largest.

None of the Reformed institutions consider themselves "Pillars of Truth". In fact, they will immediately admit that they may be teaching error. Although they defend their errors with as much gusto as they defend truth.

What does scripture say?

Rev 3:12
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.
NKJV

So we see that individuals who "overcome" are the pillars.

This verse is speaking in future terms. We will be pillars in the temple of God if we persevere to the end.

But 1 Tim 3:15 is speaking in present tense. The Church is already the Pillar of Truth.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Show me how?

Matt 16:18 shows that Jesus Christ established a Church with authority to bind and loose.

Matt 18:17 which states that the Church has authority to settle disputes and discipline Her members.

The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Church is only defined as a body of believers, but there is more than one definition for the word as is clear in Scripture.

Agreed. They are organizational churches who are mixes of saved and unsaved, and in some cases apostate. Scripture is clear that Jesus established the body of believers, not apostate churches. So we cannot mix the two meanings.

I see little value in going on on this as long as you are demanding that your denomination IS the body of Christ. Each discussion that we have comes down to this one point.

We don't interpret the Scriptures privately. We interpret in accordance with the Spirit of the Church which is evidenced in Her Traditions.

Denominational traditions (private interpretation of your denomination)

I've asked you before, how do you keep from interpreting the Scriptures privately since you have nothing upon which to stand?

God's word is nothing??

There was only one Church in existence at the time and the Catholic Church is the largest Church which can trace Herself to that time.

There was no denomination at that time and many churches.

Certainly no confession resulting from the Protestant reformation can trace itself to the Apostles.

I am not protestant first of all, and any church which stands upon the word of God as their confession goes back to the Apostles. Your denomination goes back to 325AD.

[De Maria]

The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

A visible Church with authority to bind and loose.

Agreed. They are organizational churches who are mixes of saved and unsaved, and in some cases apostate. Scripture is clear that Jesus established the body of believers, not apostate churches. So we cannot mix the two meanings.

I see little value in going on on this as long as you are demanding that your denomination IS the body of Christ. Each discussion that we have comes down to this one point.

I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ. I even provided the Catechism.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another." Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."

791 The body's unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ's Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church." The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice." Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

Why do you insist on passing on your statement as Catholic Teaching?

Denominational traditions (private interpretation of your denomination)

Church teaching is not private interpretation. It is explanation of the Word of God in the Traditions of Word and Scriptures which were entrusted to Her care.

God's word is nothing??

You aren't standing on God's word but on your interpretation of God's word.

There was no denomination at that time and many churches.

There are many churches today within the Catholic Church. But they are all Catholic.

In the same way, all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are members of one and the same Church.

Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

I am not protestant first of all,

I didn't say you were. But Sola Scriptura, a doctrine to which you seem to hold, stems from the Protestant reformation and can't be traced to the Apostles nor the Early Christians. It is an innovation about 600 years old.

and any church which stands upon the word of God as their confession goes back to the Apostles. .

You have yet to prove that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is an accurate reading of the Word of God. Essentially, its your word against everybody else. And just as you don't see the Catholic Church in Scripture, I certainly don't see you in Scripture.

Your denomination goes back to 325AD

The Teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond the year 325 all the way to the Apostles, as I have shown.

Sincerely,

[Tj3]

A visible Church with authority to bind and loose.

You ignored what I said once again. The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ.

Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour. But again, this had nothing to with who the church is - it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.

Church teaching is not private interpretation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - we've heard this before, but it does not agree with the context of the book of Peter. That claim is in and of itself private interpretation.

In the same way, all the Churches mentioned in Scripture are members of one and the same Church.

Even the apostate ones?

Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.

I didn't say you were. But Sola Scriptura, a doctrine to which you seem to hold, stems from the Protestant reformation and can't be traced to the Apostles nor the Early Christians. It is an innovation about 600 years old.

It goes back into the OT even as well as your "tradition", but your denomination I guess rejects those parts of "tradition" that don't agree with their private interpretation.

You have yet to prove that your INTERPRETATION of Scripture is an accurate reading of the Word of God. Essentially, its your word against everybody else.

I am tired of repeating myself (and on three different threads) when you won't listen and won't deal with what I said. If you dealt honestly with my comments, I'd put more effort and time into this, but why bother when you ignore what I say and post strawman arguments and mi-representations of what I say, and then claim that I never said what I said in the first place.

When you start taking the time to deal honestly with what I said, maybe that will show me that it is worthwhile spending more time repeating what I said before.

And just as you don't see the Catholic Church in Scripture, I certainly don't see you in Scripture.

Strawman.

The Teachings of the Catholic Church go beyond the year 325 all the way to the Apostles, as I have shown.

Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.

[Fr_Chuck]

The Lutherans do not accept the pope as the head of the church. They do not believe that Peter was the first pope.

No they believe that the church was built as Peter as the leader of the early church and that he was the "rock" being spoken by. Accepting Peter as the Rock and the leader of the early church has nothing to do with accepting the POPE,

The Lutheran Church also recommends private confession in their Catechism, infant baptism and absolution given by the minister.

** Luthers small catechism, copyright 1943**

Luther changed little in his teachings from that of the Catholic Church,

[Fr_Chuck]

I do find it amazing, in that to fight the idea of private interpretation you must use it. Since to not have it, you have to look at the church for the churches teaching. And if you accept the bible as the word of God , you have to accept the Catholic and Orthodox Church as valid, since they are the ones that set up the New Testement as we know it, They are the ones that copied by hand and protected the bible for a over 1500 years before there was even anyone else having a bible. The Apostles Creed, and more all come out of the Catholic Church.

To deny their place protecting the faith, would mean to deny the history of all that any christian church uses or has today.

If one wants to follow scripture exactly, then why do no other church follow Jewish traditions, Jesus followed them hisself, From him being presented in the temple, to him teaching in the temple.

All churches have a tradition or custom, The same number of songs each Sunday, a sermon about the same length, normally a dinner or meal every so many sundays or on certain times every year.
Or only communion once a year not every service. That is still a tradition or custom

[Tj3]

I do find it amazing, in that to fight the idea of private interpretation you must use it.

I note that you chose not to validate that claim.

Since to not have it, you have to look at the church for the churches teaching.

I can look to the Bible for God's teaching. Also, when you say the churches teaching, which denomination shall I use? Which denominations do we find in scripture? There are many churches, as there were in NT times.

And if you accept the bible as the word of God , you have to accept the Catholic and Orthodox Church as valid, since they are the ones that set up the New Testement as we know it,

The Catholic church started more than 200 years after it was written.

If one wants to follow scripture exactly, then why do no other church follow Jewish traditions, Jesus followed them hisself, From him being presented in the temple, to him teaching in the temple.

You mean that which is documented in scripture? Let's also look at how Jesus established truth in doctrine - he quoted from scripture.

All churches have a tradition or custom, The same number of songs each Sunday, a sermon about the same length, normally a dinner or meal every so many sundays or on certain times every year.
Or only communion once a year not every service. That is still a tradition or custom

Having a custom is not the same as saying that your custom is doctrinal and must be followed by all other churches.

[Wangdoodle]

Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.

Cardinal Newman said many things before he became Catholic, and after. Will you please provide a reference?

[De Maria]

You ignored what I said once again. The body of Christ - right, not your denomination.

No I haven't. Jesus Christ established a Church. The Catholic Church is one of the few Churches which can trace Herself to the time of Christ. Certainly no confession believing in the doctrine of Scripture alone can do so.

Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour.

The Church does not condemn anyone out of hand. The Muslims "profess" to believe in God. The Church respects that "claim".

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

But again, this had nothing to with who the church is

True. So why'd you bring it up?

- it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.

I believe it is. I can trace the Catholic Church to the time of Christ by history and by Scripture. As I have proven.

And you can't trace your belief in Sola Scriptura by history or Scripture.

yeah, yeah, yeah - we've heard this before, but it does not agree with the context of the book of Peter. That claim is in and of itself private interpretation.

Again, I have proven that it is not private interpretation. It is keeping the Traditions which were established by the Apostles.

Your interpretation of Scripture is by defnition, "private" since you don't keep to any denomination, confession or tradition except your own.

Even the apostate ones?

Yes. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat.

This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.

Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.

It goes back into the OT

Not true. Jews not only kept oral traditions but they kept some man made traditions which Jesus rejected.

even as well as your "tradition", but your denomination I guess rejects those parts of "tradition" that don't agree with their private interpretation.

Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.

And yes, the Church does reject any "traditions" like Sola Scriptura which contradict the Word of God.

I am tired of repeating myself (and on three different threads) when you won't listen and won't deal with what I said. If you dealt honestly with my comments, I'd put more effort and time into this, but why bother when you ignore what I say and post strawman arguments and mi-representations of what I say, and then claim that I never said what I said in the first place.

When you start taking the time to deal honestly with what I said, maybe that will show me that it is worthwhile spending more time repeating what I said before.

Strawman.

I think I've dealt quite honestly with all your messages.

Your own Cardinal John Henry Newman disagrees.

I've already answered this on the other thread. I read the statement you provided. I don't see where he disagrees at all. In fact, if you read a little before he also says:

"and yet it is plain from Tertullian that Christians had altars of their own, and sacrifices and priests."

And Tertullian existed 150 years before Constantine. Therefore Constantine could not be the founder of the Catholic Church, since it already existed before he was born.

Sincerely,

[Fr_Chuck]

Validate, I have to laugh, obvious things, like your claim as to what the bible says, whose interpertatoin do you use if not your own, or some pastor. But seem to refuse the interpertation done by the historic church who helped define what books are even in the bible.
Seems if any group has validity it would be that one.

But it has become obvious that you are set in your way, and merely hate the Catholic Chruch for some misconcieved teaching that you were taught by some other group. Sad,

As for as Constantine, one merely has to look at the Church of the East, ( which became the Orthodox Church) they never were under the Bishop of Rome but yet in most teachings and beleifs have the same teachings, ( minus the supreme positoin of the Bishop of Rome) but in teachings of tradition, the bible and most teachings, they have very similar beleifs.
We often forget to view how the Orthodox and Catholic keep similar teachings, in those similar teachings we find some real truths, since they were the ones, that wre followed since the early church.

[Tj3]

Validate, I have to laugh, obvious things, like your claim as to what the bible says, whose interpertatoin do you use if not your own, or some pastor.

Scripture interprets scripture. Scripture is not of any private interpretation.

But seem to refuse the interpertation done by the historic church who helped define what books are even in the bible.

Which denomination? I don't see any denominations in scripture therefore, yes, I do reject denominational specific teachings which contradict scripture.

But it has become obvious that you are set in your way, and merely hate the Catholic Chruch for some misconcieved teaching that you were taught by some other group.

Odd that one must be accused of hate if they disagree with one or more doctrines. I think that it is unfortunate that we cannot simple discuss the doctrine without being subject to personal attacks.

[Tj3]

Cardinal Newman said many things before he became Catholic, and after. Will you please provide a reference?

I already provided both a quote and a reference.

[Tj3]

No I haven't. Jesus Christ established a Church.

Yep, the body of all believers.

The Catholic Church is one of the few Churches which can trace Herself to the time of Christ. Certainly no confession believing in the doctrine of Scripture alone can do so.

The Catholic church started in 325 AD. I'll stick with the Bible which is the earliest confession that exists, and came centuries before your denomination.

The Church does not condemn anyone out of hand. The Muslims "profess" to believe in God. The Church respects that "claim".

Even though their god has no son, they reject Christ, they reject the gospel... shall I go on?

True. So why'd you bring it up?

You are getting mixed up. I was responding to your comment.

And you can't trace your belief in Sola Scriptura by history or Scripture.

Actually, by both, but I prefer scripture.

Again, I have proven that it is not private interpretation. It is keeping the Traditions which were established by the Apostles.

Really? Then why do the traditions of your denomination contradict the traditions of the Apostles as documented in scripture?

Your interpretation of Scripture is by defnition, "private" since you don't keep to any denomination, confession or tradition except your own.

I don't interpret scripture, and just like Jesus and the Apostles, I belong to no denomination. Were Jesus and the Apostles wrong?

Yes. Jesus said the weeds would grow with the wheat.

So you think that the unsaved are members of the body of Christ - I'd love to see where you find that in scripture.

Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.

As do Christians who are not part of organized churches and as does the Holy Spirit. Your point is?

Not true. Jews not only kept oral traditions but they kept some man made traditions which Jesus rejected.

True and Jesus condemned the oral traditions which went above and beyond scripture. How does that help your cause?

Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.

Read the text.

And yes, the Church does reject any "traditions" like Sola Scriptura which contradict the Word of God.

Sola Scriptura is not a tradition.

I think I've dealt quite honestly with all your messages.

Then you have not been reading.

[De Maria]

Yep, the body of all believers.

As well as an Institution with the power to bind and loose:

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Catholic church started in 325 AD. I'll stick with the Bible which is the earliest confession that exists, and came centuries before your denomination.

The Bible describes the Catholic Church:

1. The Church is one,

Ephesians 4 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

- united under one leader, a shepherd which we now call the Pope:
John 21 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

- Who will keep the Church from heresy:
Luke 22 31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

2. The Church is Holy, built by Jesus Christ Himself:
Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

- Who Himself feeds us with His Body:
John 6 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

- The Church gives us the bread of life daily:
Acts Of Apostles 2 46 And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;

3. The Church is Catholic, in fulfillment of the call to make disciples of the world
Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

- Teaching the Traditions of Jesus Christ by word and epistle:
2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

4. The Church is apostolic. Being built on the shoulders of the Apostles by Jesus Christ Himself:

Acts Of Apostles 4 33 And with great power did the apostles give testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord; and great grace was in them all.

Even though their god has no son, they reject Christ, they reject the gospel... shall I go on?

Unlike you, the Church teaches that all people are made in the image of God. We believe, even the Muslims are seeking God. If you want to debate Islam, find a Muslim to debate with. I am not a Muslim.

You are getting mixed up. I was responding to your comment.

Show me. I see you are the first one to bring up Muslims:
Message #70, I said,

Quote:
I already wrote that the Church considers all the baptized as members of the Body of Christ.

You responded:

Including Muslims which the CCC refers to as foremost amongst those who worship the true God even though they reject Jesus as Saviour. But again, this had nothing to with who the church is - it once again is not your denomination, but is the body of Christ.

So, you brought up the subject of Muslims.

Actually, by both, but I prefer scripture.

Show me.

Really? Then why do the traditions of your denomination contradict the traditions of the Apostles as documented in scripture?

Show me. I've shown you how I believe Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. Show me where any Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture.

I don't interpret scripture, and just like Jesus and the Apostles, I belong to no denomination. Were Jesus and the Apostles wrong?

Jesus established the Church to which the Apostles belonged. And the Church to which Apostles belonged contains all the same marks as the Church which is now called the Catholic Church. And this Church can trace Herself historically to the Apostles.

So you think that the unsaved are members of the body of Christ - I'd love to see where you find that in scripture.

Matthew 13 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

John 15 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and case him into the fire, and be burneth.

As do Christians who are not part of organized churches... Your point is?

Message #70You said:
This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church.

Message #75 I responded:
Where does it say so? I see a reference to baptism. The organized Churches all baptize.

My point is that baptism now saves you:
1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:

Therefore, you can't exclude those in the organized Churches from the saved.

But you ignored my question yet again. I repeat:
Where does it say so? Where does it say that "This refers to those who are saved, not the organized church."?

... and as does the Holy Spirit...

As does the Holy Spirit? Please explain what you mean by that part of your statement.

True and Jesus condemned the oral traditions which went above and beyond scripture. How does that help your cause?

Catholic Traditions are confirmed in Scripture. Jesus condemned the traditions of men, like Sola Scriptura, which contradict the Word of God.

Read the text.

I have. So I repeat,
Quote:
Private interpretation is a "singular" matter. You are using a "plural" pronoun to describe the interpretation of the Church. The truth is that the Church explains Scripture in accordance to the spirit of the Authors who are themselves men of the Church.

Sola Scriptura is not a tradition.

It has all the earmarks of tradition. It is information passed on from generation to generation.

The word tradition comes from the Latin word traditio which means "to hand down" or "to hand over." It is used in a number of ways in the English language: # A meme; beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally.. .
En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition

So, why do you say it isn't a tradition?

Then you have not been reading.

Yes, I have.

Sincerely,