In Roman Catholic History, Did That "Church" Ever Feel Threatened?

Romish, we are so tired of Catholic deceptions.

Please tell us which translation of the bible you are quoting above.
King James Version.

Nope.

Your quote: "Stand fast and hold to the Tradition."
KJV: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

So now you went from manufacturing false quotes, to lying about where you copied them from.


All in a day's work for RC apologists. What is wrong with you?
 
I love when Catholics call their lies "hyperbole."

Actually, it is quite simple to claim judgment rests with God alone without adding the lie that Mary is more merciful.

What a horrible blasphemy you defend.
What blasphemy? The idea that God alone is the judge?

That anyone is more merciful than the source of all mercy.

Playing dumb will not help you here.
 
is the Church (ekklesia) all believers or just Catholics?

What are the "gates of hell"??
Ultimately, the Church is comprised of all believers.

...the gates of Hell will not prevail over Catholicism.

Contradict yourself much?

Christ never promised any such thing for "Catholicism." He specifically made the promise to the Church.

Since you admit the Church is the body of all believers...you have nullified your own falsehood.



Gates of hell is a metaphor for the powers of death and destruction, evil.

Hades is not a metaphor for evil. Satan does not reside in Hades.

Hades is a prison for evil.

LOL.


It refers to four things---though could be more---this is not necessarily all inclusive:

1) The preaching of the Church. Satan is driven out of the hearts of believers, he does not prevail over the preaching of the Gospel. He is driven away. In this, the Church is on the offensive--attacking Satan and driving him out.

2) When Satan attempts to attack believers he cannot prevail over God in their hearts.

3) When Satan attacks the collective Faith of the Church through heresy and untruth, he cannot prevail. The Church is the pillar of Truth, thus, she cannot fail to preach that which is true, she cannot fail to uphold the truth.

4) The Church will survive until the end of time. This is why the Catholic Church continues to last, despite attacks, heresy, division, etc.

And never once did you explain what the gates of Hades actually do.

You just made up a lot of other crap to promote your denomination and its Masters....and did not post the reality of the matter.
 
Ultimately, the Church is comprised of all believers.

But the Church has visible attributes, as well as a defined hierarchy. As the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (is) the Catholic Church, the gates of Hell will not prevail over Catholicism.

Gates of hell is a metaphor for the powers of death and destruction, evil. It refers to four things---though could be more---this is not necessarily all inclusive:

1) The preaching of the Church. Satan is driven out of the hearts of believers, he does not prevail over the preaching of the Gospel. He is driven away. In this, the Church is on the offensive--attacking Satan and driving him out.

2) When Satan attempts to attack believers he cannot prevail over God in their hearts.

3) When Satan attacks the collective Faith of the Church through heresy and untruth, he cannot prevail. The Church is the pillar of Truth, thus, she cannot fail to preach that which is true, she cannot fail to uphold the truth.

4) The Church will survive until the end of time. This is why the Catholic Church continues to last, despite attacks, heresy, division, etc.

Note by the way---Protestant's seem to forget that Matthew 16:18 is only one of many verses used not only to prove the indefectibility and infallibility of the CHurch, but the papacy. If Matthew 16:18 were the one sole verse produces by Catholics then perhaps Protestants might have a point. But even there---I am only granting that for the sake of argument. I have never found the Protestant replies to Catholics about Matthew 16:18 convincing--for example the book "Upon This Slippery Rock" is decidedly unconvincing.
Prove the rc denomination is what you claim it is.

Don't you want all of us non-rc denomination members to join the one denomination you claim Christ established on earth?

I'm already a member of the Body of Christ (His Church that He established, that He is the cornerstone of, made up of all of us Born-Again believers), but you claim Christ established the rc denomination, I must be in the wrong Body of Christ. Please show us where we are wrong! Save us from our mistake!
 
Prove the rc denomination is what you claim it is.

Don't you want all of us non-rc denomination members to join the one denomination you claim Christ established on earth?

I'm already a member of the Body of Christ (His Church that He established, that He is the cornerstone of, made up of all of us Born-Again believers), but you claim Christ established the rc denomination, I must be in the wrong Body of Christ. Please show us where we are wrong! Save us from our mistake!
Google your denomination and see who the founder is and what year it was founded.
 
Prove the rc denomination is what you claim it is.
Shall I prove that the sky is blue while I am at it? Some truths are self-evident; you either recognize it or you don't. It is either grasped, or it isn't.

In order to know that the sky is blue, you have to be able to perceive the color blue. In order to perceive the color blue, you have to have certain receptors in your eyes. If you lack those receptors, you cannot perceive that the sky is blue.

That the RCC is the one true Church is a Faith based claim--just like the idea that the Bible is God's Word is a Faith based claim. What color receptors are to the eyes, Faith is to the Christian. Without Faith you simply cannot perceive the Truth.
Don't you want all of us non-rc denomination members to join the one denomination you claim Christ established on earth?
I don't care what you do. Join, don't join. You worship God as the dictates of your conscience demand, and I will do the same.
I'm already a member of the Body of Christ (His Church that He established, that He is the cornerstone of, made up of all of us Born-Again believers), but you claim Christ established the rc denomination, I must be in the wrong Body of Christ. Please show us where we are wrong! Save us from our mistake!
If you are truly born again--as you say, then you are in the Body of Christ and can be saved.
 
It's not, 'whatever'.
It is "whatever" because your "But, but, but" whining about "The RCC Tradition is not what Paul has in mind" doesn't affect my point.

The POINT is that Paul points the Christians he was writing to BOTH Scripture AND Tradition. That means in Paul's mind, Scripture AND Tradition were equal.

Yet as you yourself claim below---Tradition and Scripture are NOT equal. This is contrary to the very Scriptures you appeal to when you claim the Scriptures alone are the sole standard for the Christian, that the Scriptures are to norm Tradition.

You deliberately changed the Word of God (you wrote 'the Tradition', post #34) to fit your rc denominations narrative that rc traditions are equal to God's Word.
Sigh....

Paul refers the Christians to Tradition, FACT.

YOU go SOLELY by the Bible. FACT.

Who is the real Bible Christian here? Me or you?

Do you have absolutely no fear of God?
Of course, I fear God! It is you that I have no fear of.
 
Google your denomination and see who the founder is and what year it was founded.

I Googled "who is the founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church" and Google said the founder is Jesus Christ.


I Googled "what year was the Eastern Orthodox Church founded" and Google said that it was founded on Pentecost in AD 33.


ROFL!

Is Google correct?
 
I Googled "who is the founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church" and Google said the founder is Jesus Christ.


I Googled "what year was the Eastern Orthodox Church founded" and Google said that it was founded on Pentecost in AD 33.


ROFL!

Is Google correct?
Seriously dude?

The Orthodox ARE Catholic. They are in schism, but they ARE Catholic. I have no problem asserting that Christ founded the Orthodox Church.

They reject Sola Scriptura and believe pretty much everything we Latin Rite Catholics believe. Their biggest hang-up is that they disagree with us in the nature of papal primacy.
 
Was the Eastern Orthodox Church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost in AD 33?
The EO and Latin West are the Catholic Church. They are the East and the West. The EO comprise the Eastern half of the Church.

For the sake of simplicity, I am going to go with the date of 1054 that they went into schism, even though modern historians dispute this and argue that as there was reunion with after that split--and they did not go into full schism until sometime in the 1300's.
 
What exactly are the oral traditions Paul taught the Thessalonians that he said to follow that were not already recorded in Scripture?
One and the same Gospel as is recorded in Scripture.

Your question shows a fundamental misapprehension of what Catholics mean by Tradition.

Catholics assert that there is one font of revelation: God. The fullness and perfection of this revelation is Jesus Christ.

What God has said and done in salvation history is preserved in writing (Scripture) and in the life, Faith, worship, and culture of the Church.
 
The EO and Latin West are the Catholic Church. They are the East and the West. The EO comprise the Eastern half of the Church.

For the sake of simplicity, I am going to go with the date of 1054 that they went into schism, even though modern historians dispute this and argue that as there was reunion with after that split--and they did not go into full schism until sometime in the 1300's.

Was the Eastern Orthodox Church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost in AD 33?

Are they commissioned by God Himself to teach authoritatively and are they protected from all doctrinal error?
 
Stop lying.

Paul said "traditions" and not "Tradition." You also capitalized the "T" so you could add weight to your lie.

You also lied about the translation you used to quote 2 Thess 2:15.

You did not use a translation. You made it up.
Fine traditions. Whatever. You jeep bringing up irrelevant details that do nothing to address the substance of my argument!
 
Back
Top