Featured What does the RCC officially teach regarding Mary?

The RCC, as you call it, was that church and it doesn't have heresies. If you think otherwise you are deluded by satanic influences.

 

I've participated on an Orthodox forum, and they feel about the RCC the same way they feel about the Protestants -- that both are heretical.

 

Who determines who is a heretic?

 

I'd say it was those who protest against Christ's Apostolic Church, that would be the C C.

 

Jesus left us to be in Heaven with the Father. Jesus our Chief Shepherd left His sheep to be fed by Peter [ the first earthly shepherd, a shepherd never leaves his sheep without a replacement shepherd ] Of course the Catholic Church is based both on the Teachings of Jesus via His Apostles and the Holy Bible.{ Luke 10: 16 }You can not find another authoritative verse as that one.

 

You don't believe the Bible one whit! In fact you deny it!
If you believed the Bible you would be able to defend the doctrines of Mary that Zenas posted in the second post of this thread (not from scripture but the RCC doctrine)

These are heretical. They are not found in the Bible. Perhaps you might look in the Hindu Vedas for similarities.

 

DHK, come to think about it , I can't ever remember reading anywhere about your Baptist church being in the Bible either.

 

If one was interested in finding the church closest to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, one should look to the source book of that faith, the New Testament. How were the churches organized? Who were its ministers? How did it baptize? Whom did it baptize? What were the requirements for baptism? What did it teach? There are bodies of believers who can justify their existence from NT teaching; some are closer to the first century churches than others. The RCC is not one of them, as it has added a great many doctrines and practices not only not found there but actually contradictory to what is found in the NT. Any objective, unbiased, and studied observer can see this plainly.

 

Rebel, actually one should look at the whole Bible.
As you say, we will look at the NT. If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the qualities of His Church. The Church we seek must be one, because Jesus spoke singular 'church' not churches, so sayeth the Lord in the Bible holy- because Jesus is holy , catholic because Jesus wanted His Church to be universal [ catholic ] and apostolic as we witness from Bible history of three + years of Teaching the "Fullness of the Christian Faith " to His Apostles.
Now let's move on to the Bible being that is what you use as your sole rule for salvation .
The Church is One- { Rom. 13:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12: 13 } we see where Jesus established only one church, not a collection of different churches [ Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on ] The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ { Eph.5: 23-32 } Jesus can have but "one" spouse, and His spouse is the Catholic Church of Matt.16, Jesus never had a divorce from His Church that He formed on His Apostles.
The Church is Holy [ Eph. 5:25-27, Rev.19:7-8. By His grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as He is holy.
The Church is Catholic. { Msatt.28:19-20, Rev.5:9-10 } Jesus ' Church is called Catholic[ "universal" in Greek] because it is the gift to all people. He told His apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of " all nations" baptizing.... { Matt.28:19-20 } For 2000 years His "Church" has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that He wants all of us to be members of His " universal" family [ Gal. 3:28 }
The Church is Apostolic { Eph.2: 19-20 } The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because He appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Teaching Tradition { 2 Tim. 2: 2 }.

Now lets see if you can take time, as I have and used the Bible to try and support your individual denomination with as many Bible verses that I have used to prove that Jesus formed that very same Church that I am so grateful to be a member of.

 

Sure it is. It is in Acts chapter two--the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
We can claim that because of "sola scriptura," and not the doctrine of man, such as you have. Everything we believe is based on the Word of God. We pattern our doctrine, our beliefs, our practices after the teachings of the NT.
But you don't. You believe in superstitions and myths--things that are not in the Bible and have more in common with Hinduism than they do with Biblical Christianity.

 

DHK, I see nothing about Sola Scriptura but I do see Apostolic Oral Teaching along with Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death.

 

DHK, {Acts 2: 1-41, 15;7-12 } It was Peter that lead the Church in proclaiming the gospel and making decisions. Still nothing about SS.

 

That was something they had to do. It was not tradition or oral teaching, etc. It was a duty, an obligation. The office of the 12th apostle was empty. It had to be fulfilled. Read the chapter. Peter explains the reason behind it.

There were 12 and only 12.
The Apostle Paul refers to himself as "one born out of due time," an Apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was the one exception.
Look in the Book of Revelation. On the foundation of the New Jerusalem there are the names of the 12 Apostles written. Who will they be? There are no successors. There are only The Twelve, as they are often referred to.
Jesus and The Twelve make up the foundation of the church as it tells us.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
--Jesus Christ and The Twelve, and Paul, and the Prophets--all those who make up the authors of Scripture.

But you have a bigger problem.
You can't even prove that Peter was ever in Rome, much less a bishop in Rome.

 

Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Not Peter, but The Twelve.

Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
--At this point they appointed others to help them. Some call them deacons. The word is simply translated "servants."

Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
The Twelve gave themselves to prayer and to the Word. To them it was not an office but a service.

In Acts 15 many came and gathered together in Jerusalem
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
--It was James that gave the decision, and James that was now the pastor of Jesus.
James was also the half-brother of Jesus; so much for perpetual virginity of Mary!

 

DHK, I've adequately answered this in the Thread Titled -- How to Get To Heaven when You Die- my post # 296 answered also by a former Baptist

 

DHK, furthermore,although the Bible has no unmistakable evidence that he was there (though 1 Peter 5:13 does imply it), early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius are unanimous in saying that he went to Rome, presided over the Church there, and was martyred during the Emperor Nero’s persecution.

There was no early writer who claimed that Peter never went to Rome and died elsewhere, and no other ancient city ever claimed to be the place of his death or to have his remains—which makes sense, since in this century it has been demonstrated that his bones lay beneath the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica.

A popular account of the archaeological excavations conducted from 1939 to 1968, at which time Pope Paul VI confirmed that Peter’s bones had been scientifically and historically identified, may be found in John E. Walsh’s book The Bones of St. Peter.
,