Hello again Undf'ed. There's a volumous collection of the early church father's writings that I got those quotes from. Basically they were the first few actual witnesses to the early church. Polycarp was a desciple of John, for example, and was the bishop of Smyrna in the 2nd century. His and countless others testify to the CC in the first thru 20th centuries. Not sure how those can be quickly dismissed as evidence as accurate historical accounts.
The Apostle Paul taught that you should check with the Scriptures, and if the Church's teachings did not agree with the Scriptures, then the Church would be accursed, and you should not believe the Church.
He said the opposite in Matt 18:17. Otherwise, he would have said "If he then not hear the Bible which by the way, won't even be around for a few hundred years, let them be as the publican and the heathen". St. Paul declared the church as the pillar and foundation of truth in 1Tim 3:15, and exhorted us to hold fast the traditions either in written form or oral trasmission (2Thess 2:15; also 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2). The NT is as example of the CC's written form of transmission.
Amazingly, your acknowledgement of the CC as having compiled the cannon = implicit trust in her magisterium in truth of teaching, but your overall rejection of the CC contradicts your own basis. What benefit is pick-n-choose-cafeteria-style Christianity?
From all of my research into the Catholic Church, I am completely 100% sure that the Catholic Church is NOT Jesus Christ's Church, and really they never were.
Well, I'm sure you're being very honest here. Perhaps as a fruit of these discussions may be further investigation, particularly on where the Bible came from. If Jesus did not establish the CC and promise it to last until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18-19) then He is either a false prophet OR the CC is that church. It's either/or. Which is it?
The Catholic Church has lifted itself up (and lifted the Pope up) higher than Christ Himself, and higher than Christ's Holy Scriptures.
It would be different if the Pope self-arrogated his position. Rather, Christ did it himiself by giving Peter--a man--the responsibility to feed Christ's sheep. The Holy Scriptures, again, is a fruit of the CC which is inextricable from Holy Tradition. By contrast, man extracting the Holy Scriptures from the Holy Church and basing their beliefs on the fruit of our chruch is a modern human tradition. So no, the CC hasn't lifted itself up higher than Christ, He raised it up that way and still does.
The Catholic Church condemned, persecuted, tortured, tormented, and murdered fellow Christians, simply because they had their own copy of the Scriptures, or because they were translating their own copy.
Some of this sentiment is fabulous. Again, the case has yet to be effectively made as to why you feel it was necessary that the Bible be stolen and copied for individuals. Any takers?
Somebody stealing a Bible, which is used for the Liturgy in the Mass, cost $$ and months to make copies. How is it that it seems ok by you? Also, how beneficial is it for those illiterate to have a Bible? Beyond that, there is nothing--NOTHING--anyone can gain from reading the Bible independently that you cannot gain at Mass. However, going to Mass you get both the precious body and blood of our Lord and His sacred scripture. Outside of the confines of Christ's church, there is no guarantee that what one learns from independent reading wouldn't result in independent interpretation. That's why St. Peter (2 Pet 1:20; 3:35-16) exhorted people not to resort to "wrestling with the Scriptures". Said "wrestling" has divided Christianity from one church to over 30,000. Is that ok by your standards?
I will never, ever be a follower of MAN, that includes the Catholic Church.
Nobody wants you to follow a man, and that includes following yourself. In the CC, you only follow a man if you consider Jesus Christ to be merely a "man". See, when one leaves the CC, they make themselves Pope and feed themselves rather than have Christ's shepherd feed them. Or they make Pastor Bob down the street their own Pope. That's why Christ says in Matt 23:9 "call no man on earth father". In context, He was speaking with the Pharisies who wanted applause and attention, and who longed to be called "abba", "teacher", "rabbi". "Pastors" today, without apastolic authority, self-arrogate their authority, which makes a follower "twice the child of hell as themselves" (vs. 15). The difference is that in the CC, Christ specifically gave Peter and the apostles authority, and to hand it down over the generations (just as Judas was replaced by Mathias, for example).
I'm sure your Church teaches that I will be burning in Hell for eternity because I follow Jesus and the Bible and not the Church.
Ha ha, Undf'ed no you will not burn in hell for this one . God's not like your average highway patrol officer: ignorance IS an excuse (and believe me, it's often bliss). Besides questioning your CC IQ (cuz this charge is off like some of the others), I'd certainly say that you are very sincere in your quest to know Jesus Chrsit. God nor the CC condemns anyone to hell; people condemn themselves. By saying "I know that Jesus Chrsit founded and heads the CC and is truly present in the blessed Eucharist, but I want nothing to do with His establishment or him at all", then at death God simply grants them their wish. Hell is eternal separation from God that comes when we separate ourselves from his grace via mortal sin. Hope that explanation helps.
Undf'ed it has been a pleasure discussing with you! I appreciate your spiritual hospitality and look forward to seeing you on other threads (I've got your back on the Trinity thread ).
