Fullness of the faith??????????

[JimfromOhio]

Well Protestant scholars disagree with the inventions you are spewing out.


Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

Even the RCC have their own doctrinal problems including heretical doctrinal issues that been brought up by Luther and others. Tradition is an important guidance for all believers however, Tradition should be carefully scrutinized (to look over closely and discerning) before we rely on them. Tradition by itself is not enough because it must be studied and be brought up to date to true orthodoxy. The real doctrinal crisis today is not between Catholic and Protestants or any other denominations but rather traditional, scriptural and doctrinal forms of Church life to agree on the Truth. Its a man's heart that is corrupted. Intelligence, reason, and choice.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Jesus said:
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Apart from the new birth through the Holy Spirit, there can be no true faith. The source of Faith is the Holy Spirit that faith is kindled and is preserved and made strong by grace alone. Faith comes only when the outward fact penetrates to the inner heart of man and takes possession of him there and this is the work of the Spirit, not man. We should understand the difference between OUR faith and Christ's faith in us.

 

[chestertonrules]

Source?
Come on brother, using Dave Armstrong as a patristic source? that is beyond laughable...Your own research and linking is way more credible than the out of context snippets DA uses. I've come to expect more from you.

BTW i've already proven nearly all of these are out of context HERE.

You've done no such thing.

Why not just admit that Augustine was a faithful Catholic but you reject his views?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You've done no such thing.

Why not just admit that Augustine was a faithful Catholic but you reject his views?

Why not just say he was a Faithful Christian

 

[chestertonrules]

Why not just say he was a Faithful Christian

There's a difference?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There's a difference?

The word "Christian" just appears to have a better "ringtone" to it

 

[simonthezealot]

Jesus said:
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

Apart from the new birth through the Holy Spirit, there can be no true faith. The source of Faith is the Holy Spirit that faith is kindled and is preserved and made strong by grace alone. Faith comes only when the outward fact penetrates to the inner heart of man and takes possession of him there and this is the work of the Spirit, not man. We should understand the difference between OUR faith and Christ's faith in us.

They always seem to forget that one and 6:35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

 

[Secundulus]

Source?
Come on brother, using Dave Armstrong as a patristic source? that is beyond laughable...Your own research and linking is way more credible than the out of context snippets DA uses. I've come to expect more from you.

LOL. I'm not using his arguments, simply his quotes because I am at the moment lazy and taking a shortcut.

Anyway, the point was to refute the notion that Augustine did not believe in a real - physical, presence.

Perhaps the problem is understanding the Greek philosophy that all those ancient people thought with. I am not accusing you of not knowing this, since I don't know what you know. I have read Plato though and have some understanding of that philosophy.

These guys thought in Platonian and Aristotelian logic. St. Thomas Aquinas, who coined the term, transubstantiation, thought the same way.

The fact that a piece of bread looks, feels, tastes, and smells like a piece of bread is entirely irrelevant to its eternal substance. What we see, feel, taste, and smell is simply the accident of its physical existance. Its substance, that is its eternal reality, might be something else.

So, a piece of bread might appear to be a piece of bread but its eternal reality might be Christ.

In those philosophical terms, transubstantiation is the correct term. The substance, that is the eternal reality, has become the body and blood of Christ whereas before it was something else. What it looks like is not its reality. Its substance is its reality.

People get too twisted up in not understanding the words as the original writers meant them to be understood.

Does this match with modern science? Maybe not. But then God coming to earth and then resurrecting doesn't match with modern science either.

Also, trying to explain it as simply a spiritual presence since Jesus' body is in heaven is doing the same thing that you guys accuse the Catholics of doing. That is explaining an eternal mystery using scientific understanding.

 

[TraderJack]

Unam Sanctam does not say that only those who believe in the authority of the Pope can be saved.

Of course it does. Not only do they have to believe it, they have to be subservient to the pope of Rome to have any hope of salvation.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Unam Sanctum is very clear.

It states, according to your Roman catechism that unless one is subservient to the pope of Rome, they are not Christian and have no hope of salvation, thus are damned for not being subservient to the pope of Rome, regardless of their position in Christ.

And thus does Unam Sanctum preach a false gospel as the Judaizers did by adding unneccessary conditions for salvation which are of human origin, and not from God.

The teaching does not say that only those individuals who are willingly subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff will be saved. Therefore, non-Catholics can be saved, including persons who adhere to other religions or to no religion. The Pope was not saying that non-Catholics cannot be saved.

Wrong again.

Unam Sanctum:

Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ

Unless you are submitting that others than the "sheep of Christ" are saved, then yes, Boniface DID say that non-Roman Catholics cannot be saved.

Similarly, we could say that Baptism and the Eucharist and Confession are a necessary part of God's plan for our salvation. Some persons get into Heaven without these things, but these things are essential nonetheless. Again, some people are saved even though they do not believe in God. But belief in God is certainly a necessary part of God's plan for salvation.

Non sequitur...see the above.

 

[Secundulus]

No one said it did.

Unam Sanctum is very clear.

Unam Sanctum is 700 years old. The current Catechism is less than ten years old and says differently. Why don't you fight the monsters that currently exist instead of those who died long ago.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Unam Sanctum is 700 years old. The current Catechism is less than ten years old and says differently. Why don't you fight the monsters that currently exist instead of those who died long ago.

Sometimes it is difficult on GT to keep a dead horse dead

http://www.christianforums.com/t6905007/
Did benny deny the unam sanctum?

 

[TraderJack]

Well Protestant scholars disagree with the inventions you are spewing out.

Wrong, and I have seen those cut and paste cherrypicked snippets taken from Roman sites plenty, knowing they are misrepresented just as the ECFs are by those of the church of the Romans.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wrong, and I have seen those cut and paste cherrypicked snippets taken from Roman sites plenty, knowing they are misrepresented just as the ECFs are by those of the church of the Romans.[/b]

Roman church errors and inventions - Christian Forums
Roman church errors and inventions

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

No one said it did.

Unam Sanctum is very clear.
​

Unam Sanctum is 700 years old. The current Catechism is less than ten years old and says differently.

Well that does present a severe problem now doesn't it.

Prior to Vatican II, Unam Sanctum and it's declaration that non-Roman Catholics are not Christian and cannot be saved without being subservient to the pope of Rome, was an "infallible" decree, with the pope being the conduit for the Holy Spirit making that decree, and as Rome also claims of it's dogmas, is immutable.

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says:

"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation.

Now you are telling us that an "infallible" decree was false, and has been changed.

I can only conclude that you agree that "Unam Sanctum" was NOT the Holy Spirit speaking through Boniface as Rome claims, thus falling into the category of being a false prophet.

Why don't you fight the monsters that currently exist instead of those who died long ago.

Rome has never renounced Unam Sanctum. Therefore it is as current as any issue concerning the church of the Romans.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah, the little problem of embarrassing ghosts in the Vatican. On one hand we are informed that the Catholic Church is the One, True, Apostolic Church which has infallibly been kept by God to the present and, thus, has never erred and is, in reality, incapable of error. On the other hand we have a very lengthy recorded history which contains things that are either outright contradicted by the One, True Church itself such as Unam Sanctum or are really quite embarrassing, such as the Papal Bull proclaiming that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth every day. This would not be a problem if said Church would ever admit that its Popes are, and have been, quite fallible humans, even when speaking "infallibly" and that mistakes have been made in the name of "infallibility" so that its members should never take any statement from the Church or its Popes with anything other than a huge measure of salt.

 

[TraderJack]

Anyway, the point was to refute the notion that Augustine did not believe in a real - physical, presence.

And I have demonstrated that Augustine did not subscribe to any concept remotely resembling transubstantiation, but to the contrary said the bread and wine were symbolic representatives of a spiritual reality, adding that all who read a literal interpretation of it being the actual flesh and blood of Jesus are foolish and carnal.

 

[Secundulus]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

No one said it did.

Unam Sanctum is very clear.
​

Well that does present a severe problem now doesn't it.

No, it doesn't present a problem because first you have to put it into the historical context of the heresies he was fighting at the time and second, the Catechism does not contradict it.


Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

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."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 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."324

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

Not me

 

[Secundulus]

And I have demonstrated that Augustine did not subscribe to any concept remotely resembling transubstantiation, but to the contrary said the bread and wine were symbolic representatives of a spiritual reality, adding that all who read a literal interpretation of it being the actual flesh and blood of Jesus are foolish and carnal.

What is the link? It is lost to me in these pages.

 

[Thekla]

And I have demonstrated that Augustine did not subscribe to any concept remotely resembling transubstantiation, but to the contrary said the bread and wine were symbolic representatives of a spiritual reality, adding that all who read a literal interpretation of it being the actual flesh and blood of Jesus are foolish and carnal.

There's that pesky word agin'