Catechism 1493

[Albion]

Chi Rho posted a link above with a ton evidence and logic to support the CC's beliefs about the sacraments.

Hey...The issue--at least from me--is not "What is the Catholic Church's theory about the sacraments?"

It's "What acts are properly to be considered sacraments and which rites or ceremonies fail the test of being sacraments?".

OK maybe I took the logic too far, but one person's interpretation carries no more authority than another's interpretation, leaving one with no way to determine who is correct.

No way? Let me offer you my copy of the Holy Bible.

Mr. X says his interpretation is valid and Mr. Y's isn't. Mr. Y says his interpetaion is valid Mr. X's isn't. Mrs. Z disagrees with both of them and goes and starts her own church. How can one determine what the truth really is, digging through thousands of unauthoritative interpretations?

Bible scholarship is no more unthinkable or impossible to do than studying the works of Thomas Aquinas or Karl Marx in order to properly understand them.

But Sola Scriptura provides no way to know which interpretations are valid.

No, but you can't name me any other system which completely avoids the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of some reader, somewhere. You're suggesting that I go with your system instead, but it presents the very same uncertainties as you are attributing to God's word in scripture.

The anti-Sola Scriptura argument is bogus because it holds Scripture up to a standard that not only is impossible--every reader coming up with the same understanding or interpretation, under all circumstances, regardless of education, I.Q. or anything else that affects the issue--but AT THE SAME TIME you simply substitute "Just believe what my church tells you."

 

[SMA12]

Hey...The issue--at least from me--is not "What is the Catholic Church's theory about the sacraments?"



It's "What acts are properly to be considered sacraments and which rites or ceremonies fail the test of being sacraments?".

You were ranting about how people read the same scripture verses and disagreeing about what is and isn't a sacrament. I pointed out it helps to have an authority outside of personal interpretation to determine what the sacraments are. You were somehow "offended" I didn't offer reasons for what Catholics believe about the sacraments, when they were listed for you a couple posts above.

No way? Let me offer you my copy of the Holy Bible.

You mean the same Bible that thousands of denominations read and come up with thousands of interpretations and all claim theirs is the truth. Again, no way to be sure your interpretation is correct.

Bible scholarship is no more unthinkable or impossible to do than studying the works of Thomas Aquinas or Karl Marx in order to properly understand them.

And people have contradicting interpretations of those works as well. When it comes to the inspired word of God, isn't it much more important to know which interpretation is correct?

No, but you can't name me any other system which completely avoids the possibility of misunderstanding on the part of some reader, somewhere. You're suggesting that I go with your system instead, but it presents the very same uncertainties as you are attributing to God's word in scripture.

The anti-Sola Scriptura argument is bogus because it holds Scripture up to a standard that not only is impossible--every reader coming up with the same understanding or interpretation, under all circumstances, regardless of education, I.Q. or anything else that affects the issue--but AT THE SAME TIME you simply substitute "Just believe what my church tells you."

No, I substitute it with "believe what the Church founded by Jesus Christ tells you and believe what the Church that even Scripture regards as the pillar and foundation of truth." That is the system I trust, because I trust Jesus who established it.

You are right, it is an impossible standard for everyone to interpret scripture the same. That is exactly my point. Hence the need for an authority to determine the truth when our interpretations differ. Protestantism offers no such authority and has resulted in division after division. Division that you cannot defend if you believe personal interpretation is sufficient to definitively know he truth.

 

[Albion]

You were ranting about how people read the same scripture verses and disagreeing about what is and isn't a sacrament.

As I recall, I was trying to make a point that wasn't being understood. I'd hardly call that a "rant."

You were somehow "offended" I didn't offer reasons for what Catholics believe about the sacraments

Hmm. And I can't seem to find anywhere where I said that I was "offended" at such a thing, even though you put quotation marks around the word. Is it possible you'll speak to the issue itself sooner or later?

Again, no way to be sure your interpretation is correct.

And there is no way to be sure your interpretation is correct, either--or your interpretation of the suggested alternative to the Bible, traditions.

That is what I have mainly been trying to get you to come face to face with. When you confront that, we can move ahead. Otherwise all I'd e bdoing is reading an invalid criticism of Sola Scriptura based upon an incorrect definition of it.

You are right, it is an impossible standard for everyone to interpret scripture the same. That is exactly my point. Hence the need for an authority to determine the truth when our interpretations differ.

But who is to say that your human authority is the right one or better than the next one or even capable of being infallible? And even if these were not problems that you won't confront, what are we to say about the traditions that have been added to scripture in the catholic churches? What makes THAT correct?

If this is your answer: "I substitute it with "believe what the Church founded by Jesus Christ tells you "

...you have first to show me why your denomination IS that church--and do it without reference to the Bible since, as you have argued, there are lots of different interpretations of what's in the Bible.

It looks like your position boils down to this: "My church says it is infallible, so because it is infallible, its decisions are infallibly correct." That's very much the same argument used by the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons in defending their unique interpretations of scripture and history.

 

[SMA12]

Hmm. And I can't seem to find anywhere where I said that I was "offended" at such a thing, even though you put quotation marks around the word. Is it possible you'll speak to the issue itself sooner or later?

Here is your exact quote:

"What does offend me is the person who simply posts his church's position statement on whatever doctrine it might be, as though he can impose it upon the reader simply by saying it...with no particular evidence to support it or logic or anything but saying it!." ~Albion


Which is silly, as I said, because the logic and evidence was right above your post.

And there is no way to be sure your interpretation is correct, either--or your interpretation of the suggested alternative to the Bible, traditions.

That is what I have mainly been trying to get you to come face to face with. When you confront that, we can move ahead. Otherwise all I'd e bdoing is reading an invalid criticism of Sola Scriptura based upon an incorrect definition of it.

The only assurance I need that Catholic interpretation is correct is the assurance Christ gave to it. I believe what the Church says, first and foremost, because of He who established it and gave it His guarantee.

But who is to say that your human authority is the right one or better than the next one or even capable of being infallible? And even if these were not problems that you won't confront, what are we to say about the traditions that have been added to scripture in the catholic churches? What makes THAT correct?

First you will have to show me where it says in the Bible that we must only do that which is in the Bible. When you cannot find such statement, maybe you will see how Sola Scriptura contradicts itself. Show me where it says traditions are to be avoided. You will only find the opposite.

You realize that the Bible did not even exist until the 4th century, don't you? Jesus didn't pass out the Bible before His ascension. The Church was founded on Tradition. It was the Tradition of the Church who compiled the New Testament and declared it the inspired Word of God!

If this is your answer: "I substitute it with "believe what the Church founded by Jesus Christ tells you "

...you have first to show me why your denomination IS that church--and do it without reference to the Bible since, as you have argued, there are lots of different interpretations of what's in the Bible.

It looks like your position boils down to this: "My church says it is infallible, so because it is infallible, its decisions are infallibly correct." That's very much the same argument used by the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons in defending their unique interpretations of scripture and history.

Again you offered no way to definitively determine the truth. I have.

Why is the Church's authority greater than other human authority? Because Jesus gave it that authority. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be losses in Heaven." The Church isn't infallible in regards to truth because it says so, but because Christ made it so.

I can prove my Church to be the Church founded by Christ without the Bible- all I need is a History book or the writings of the Church Fathers- either will do the trick So yes, we have a much more credible claim than do the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, or even the Protestants.

I trust the the Church Jesus founded as the pillar and foundation of truth guided by the Holy Spirit, more than I trust the personal interpretations of thousands of divided denominations. Isn't it a tad hypocritical to accept the Bible but to reject the Church that gave it to you?

 

[Albion]

The only assurance I need that Catholic interpretation is correct is the assurance Christ gave to it.

If you've talked yourself into believing that, OK, but this is supposed to be discussion, and "I believe what I've decided to believe" doesn't exactly offer anything for discussion, don't you see?

But IF you wanted to discuss issues or reasons or proofs, etc, that would be different.

First you will have to show me where it says in the Bible that we must only do that which is in the Bible.

I don't believe that. Where did you come up with this gem of a misstatement?

Show me where it says traditions are to be avoided. You will only find the opposite.

And why should I show you anything from the Bible when you've rejected it in advance?

You realize that the Bible did not even exist until the 4th century, don't you?

That's a favorite from the RC posters' playbook...except that it isn't true.

Again you offered no way to definitively determine the truth. I have.

Just going with what one denomination says is your idea of how to "definitively determine the truth.? That doesn't even make sense. It's a way to decide what you'll believe, but it is NOT a way to determine the truth, since it doesn't do any "determining."

Why is the Church's authority greater than other human authority? Because Jesus gave it that authority. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be losses in Heaven."

He was speaking to his Apostles, not referring to any denomination that wouldn't even take shape for hundreds of years to come. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, and lots of other groups insist that he was speaking there of their own denominations, too.

The Church isn't infallible in regards to truth because it says so, but because Christ made it so.

Because it said that Christ said so, you mean.

 

[SMA12]

If you've talked yourself into believing that, OK, but this is supposed to be discussion, and "I believe what I've decided to believe" doesn't exactly offer anything for discussion, don't you see?

But IF you wanted to discuss issues or reasons or proofs, etc, that would be different.

I have plenty of those, 2000 years worth. Which ones would you like to discuss?

I don't believe that. Where did you come up with this gem of a misstatement?

Umm, you know, when you criticized Catholics for having traditions not in the Bible.

And why should I show you anything from the Bible when you've rejected it in advance?

I NEVER rejected the Bible. Quit making things up. I said personal interpretation isn't authoritative in determining truth, as shown by thousands of contradictions all believed to be true based on personal interpretation. Sola Scriptura provides no answer to the dilemma. The authority of the Magestrium does.

That's a favorite from the RC posters' playbook...except that it isn't true.

It's quite true. Did Jesus pass out a table of contents of what writings were inspired and what writings weren't before He ascended? Or was it the authority of the Catholic Church who did so centuries later?

Just going with what one denomination says is your idea of how to "definitively determine the truth.? That doesn't even make sense. It's a way to decide what you'll believe, but it is NOT a way to determine the truth, since it doesn't do any "determining."

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The Magestrium has done a lot of "determining" in 2000 years.

He was speaking to his Apostles, not referring to any denomination that wouldn't even take shape for hundreds of years to come. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, and lots of other groups insist that he was speaking there of their own denominations, too.

He was speaking to the Church He established right then and there. You are right He wasn't speaking to churches that did not exist yet

Because it said that Christ said so, you mean.

Christ said it to some Church. Can yours date itself back to Him?



P.S. I can do without all of the at my statements. One might begin to think you were trying to laugh at and condescend my statement. Defense mechanism perhaps?

 

[Albion]

I have plenty of those, 2000 years worth. Which ones would you like to discuss?

]
Well, I'm carrying on discussions on several threads at present. Feel free to join in.

Umm, you know, when you criticized Catholics for having traditions not in the Bible.

I've never criticized anyone for having traditions not in the Bible but of claiming that they are divine revelation on the par with the Bible. That's a big difference. In any case, I do not believe what you said--that "we must only do that which is in the Bible."

I NEVER rejected the Bible. Quit making things up.

You should talk

It's quite true.

It's not. All the books of the Bible but two or three were accepted as divine revelation and used in the churches centuries before you claimed the Bible existed. What happened later was that they were recognized by a council.

 

[SMA12]

]

It's not. All the books of the Bible but two or three were accepted as divine revelation and used in the churches centuries before you claimed the Bible existed. What happened later was that they were recognized by a council.

That hardly equates to having a universally recognized set of inspired writings.

Some writings were used here, some writings were used there, some ended up in the NT, some didn't. Just because some were used doesn't prove anyone thought they were inspired. What about the ones that were used that didn't make the NT. Should those have been included too?

Regardless of when it happened, you have not accounted for who had the authority to decide such things and why they had that authority to make that decision, because someone had to make that decision at some point. Jesus didn't give us a table of contents. He gave us a Church.

How can one claim something is the Word of God and not know why? It's the same as claiming a piece of paper you found is the Word of God because the paper itself says its the Word of God.

 

[saintboniface]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1493: One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, MUST CONFESS TO A PRIEST all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience. The confession of venial faults, without being necessary in itself, is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church.

That's funny, my Bible says otherwise:

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was given at the proper time.

No mention of a priest. Is he somehow transformed into Christ during the confessional? How do Catholics defend such unbiblical teachings?

So where did you go? Can you explain John 20:23 for us?

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”