- Jun 23, 2011
- 18,909
- 3,645
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I would agree with you. I believe all Trinitarian baptized Christians are part of Christ's one church.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would agree with you. I believe all Trinitarian baptized Christians are part of Christ's one church.My Church also contains all the authors of the NT.
Even so, one good deed does not inherit inerrancy. The Jews maintained the OT, but look what Jesus said became of them.
I disagree. Various sects had various canons.You take this out of context. The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and asked him why his disciples don't wash their hands, as tradition dictates (this indicates a practice, not a Sacred Tradition).Matthew 15:6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of yourtradition.
This dispute begins with the question of the Pharisees and scribes why Jesus’ disciples are breaking the tradition of the elders about washing one’s hands before eating (Mt 15:2). Jesus’ counterquestion accuses his opponents of breaking the commandment of God for the sake of their tradition (Mt 15:3) and illustrates this by their interpretation of the commandment of the Decalogue concerning parents (Mt 15:4–6). Denouncing them as hypocrites, he applies to them a derogatory prophecy of Isaiah (Mt 15:7–8). Then with a wider audience (the crowd, Mt 15:10) he goes beyond the violation of tradition with which the dispute has started. The parable (Mt 15:11) is an attack on the Mosaic law concerning clean and unclean foods, similar to those antitheses that abrogate the law (Mt 5:31–32, 33–34, 38–39). After a warning to his disciples not to follow the moral guidance of the Pharisees (Mt 15:13–14), he explains the parable (Mt 15:15) to them, saying that defilement comes not from what enters the mouth (Mt 15:17) but from the evil thoughts and deeds that rise from within, from the heart (Mt 15:18–20). The last verse returns to the starting point of the dispute (eating with unwashed hands).
Part 3
Then you must consider what "provide grace" means, which is that,
by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism...who are born again, there is nothing that God hates;...are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. (The Council of Trent - Session 5, CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN
Thus as said, the act of baptism (RC sprinkling) is held as making one good enough to be with God.
The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace [in baptism], which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar... (Catholic Encyclopedia > Sanctifying Grace)
For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God as efficient cause (causa efficiens) and merited by Christ as meritorious cause (causa meritoria), become an interior sanctifying quality or formal cause (causa formalis) in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Justification)
Which state one must have at death to be fit to enter Heaven - even if by cleansing of Original Sin:
Final perseverance, in its most perfect sense, consists in the untarnished preservation of baptismal innocence until death. In a less strict sense it is the preservation of the state of grace from the last conversion until death. ( Catholic Encyclopedia > Actual Grace)
Which means the act of RC sprinkling renders one holy enough to enter Heaven if such died before sinning.
However, in Roman Catholicism forgiveness and "infused charity" (which baptism also is said to effect) is actually not enough for one to enter Heaven, for in addition to needing to atone for sins which one has not suffered enough for on earth, then one must attain perfection of character to enter Heaven, for which purpose the suffering of Purgatory exists, even though perfection of character requires growth in grace via the testings this life offers, and not simply suffering.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htmFor by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Thus RC professor and apologist Peter Kreeft states,
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." RC professor/apologist Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
The problem of sending newly baptized to Heaven, though "concupiscence" remains, while requiring one die as one who has conquered that is a problem for theologians.
But it remains that rather than able to be with God as one purified and justified by effectual faith which is counted as righteousness as Abraham was, and which are sanctified as new creations by regeneration, (1Co. 6:11), and with fruits that attest to this faith, instead in order be with God then one must become practically purified, to become perfect in character.
And which separates believers into two classes, only one being formally called "saints."
Do not change my objection. What's wrong with recognizing saints as a distinctive class of believers? Because the Holy Spirit never does, but uses saints and believers interchangeably.
And who are taught that, being justified by the good works that they do in Christ, they can be said to have truly merited eternal life. (Trent)
Matt 25 and John 5:28 and such refers to believers whose faith is such that it produces the effects which correspond to Christ (we obey whom we really believe in), whom God rewards under grace, not because they "truly merit" eternal life, which is a gift.
They key word is "own works," versus "works done in God," thereby allowing Rome to basically and effectually teach that, apart from initial justification, salvation by grace thru merit, that by the grace of God man truly merits eternal life, and which necessitates purgatorial perfection if one has not attained to perfection before that. Which in essence is justification as under the Law, that of man actually meriting justification by attaining the level of obedience necessary to be with God, except that more grace is given to attain to that perfection.
If Trent is simply saying that one is accounted to have true faith in the light of his works, and fit to be rewarded under grace, because God has chosen to reward believers for doing what He alone deserves credit for, since it is He who convicts, grants, and enables and motivates faith and obedience, then that would not be the same as having "truly merited" the gift of eternal life, but which distinction must be made clear, which I do not see Trent doing, since the natural disposition of man is to presume he will be found worthy of eternal life by basically being good enough, with some mercy expected.
Meanwhile, perhaps the clearest statement that a RC merits eternal life is that of Trent's canon 32, which teaches (by condemning those who oppose it) that one is justified by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, and truly merits eternal life.
It is one thing to say that one is accounted/judged to have eternal life due to works which testify to true faith, which faith God rewards - although in reality what the believer truly deserves is damnation, not the gift of eternal life - (Heb. 10:35) and it is another to say that one truly merits eternal life because he has done such works and attained unto perfection of character.
You're the ones who can't agree as to the Canon of Scripture. It was there for nearly 1200 years, and you 'reformers' decided to take out several books.Why don't you educate us all and give us the Catholic definition of canon of scripture and see how it compares. That way we can see how you play word games to get out of a bind.
I don't know, but there have been no 'new teachings' that are considered Traditions. There are new understandings, which God reveals to us. Some are inspired, those that do not contradict Scripture.What year closed all your "Traditions" after which new things you might add would be called new practices? But wait, you did say "We also believe that God continues to reveal himself to us" whatever that means, could it be a new teaching or only a new practice or does it mean something else?
Who determines what "necessary for salvation" is?I am talking about necessary and salvation and you think those words are so ambiguous here on CF that you use it as an excuse to not answer a question.
Meeting to worship God on Sunday is one.What "Tradition" passed down from Jesus through the apostles is necessary for salvation that is not in scripture, currently represented as the Bible?
God's Word is necessary for salvation. That is doctrine. You and I disagree as to what constitutes God's Word. I accept the authority Christ left for us, you don't. Sorry. I leave your salvation to the proper authority.You have no problem saying something is necessary for salvation even though your church has doctrine that says it is not; in that SS Protestants can be saved.
Your church has doctrine on it, but go ahead and claim ignorance of it to escape a point. And if you think judging Protestants saved to be above your paygrade, then judging what is necessary to be saved is also.
Did you just call Protestants brothers; in Christ I am assuming? If you consider them brothers in Christ, then they will be saved if they are of the body of Christ. Not to say all of any in the visible church are guaranteed salvation.
So, how do you know you can trust what was written down? I mean, people get things wrong all the time! How do you know you can trust it?It is first hand testimony from witnesses who had heard, which had seen with their eyes, which had looked at and their hands had touched the Word of Life Jesus Christ (1 John 1:1).
Sure the written testimonies were written after the fact, but it would be no different to a person writing a witness statement for a court proceeding some several months or even several years after the fact.
Religious institutions have written doctrine as an extension to the FACT of first hand eye witness account, by making claims as if it is the FACT that has been both endorsed by the first hand eye witnesses who are the disciples and that it had been authorised by the first hand eye witnesses as an authority equal to or greater than them.
Once a religious institution takes it upon themselves to act in a legalistic pharisaical spirit, that is in the image of their mother relgious institution the pharisaical institution that Paul abandoned, then they make fraudulent claims based on hearsay by falsely saying that that their doctrine is both endorsed and authorised by the disciples themselves.
We have to reject their claims as baseless and since no evidence can be provided by those relgious institutions making those claims, that the apostles both endorsed their doctrine and authorised them to be of equal or greater authority than them, then we must again reject doctrine that is outside of the details of the written first hand testimony of the disciples who established the faith and who had completely taught what was required for one to be saved.
If religious institutions that make up doctrine some hundreds of years later claim that extra salvatory requirements are necessary for one to be saved, that is not written by any apostle, then it should be rejected. Therefore take all the alleged oral tradition and with a red pen cross out any doctrine that is not present in the writings of the first hand eye witness accounts such as ie purgatory, penance, salvation through relgious institution, forgiveness through relgious institution, Chief Priesthood outside of the non transferable Melchizedek of Christ, God the Father had sworn in their Chief Priest with an oath equal to Christ, religious institution is the way, the truth and the life, reglious institution is guarantor of a better covenant, institution is sinless and infallible equal to Christ and the list goes on.
If you only understood what claims are made through oral tradition of men who have assumed endorsement and authority from the apostles, then we really have a completely different faith and relgious institution as compared to the 1st century Ekklesia/Church. The claim of succession to the original faith looks rather implausible as what was pure and original had been altered to suit the hierarchical structure and mechanisation of a legalistic institution that would encompass the globe and involve itself in political matters completely outside of the great commission and outside of what the apostles were involved in back in the 1st century.
As Jesus said you will know them by their works and since a relgious institution has been made an idol to look up to, as being infallible by those making such claim, then we have to look at the works and policies of the institution from a historical point of view and not blame the fallible men who through the institution's policies made horrendous crimes against humanity and all in the name of religion.
I am sure that the apostles administration had nothing to do with the relgious institution that has evolved today from its inception until now. We have a completely different entity as compared to the 1st century relgious institution that was headed by the disciples.
Part 4
Which is according to official profession, which in Scriptuire what one does and effects testifies to what they truly belive.
But regardless, rather than that countering what i said, this official stance makes Rome even more culpable for counting even prosodomite proabortion public figures as members in life and in death, and not effectually disciplining such.
You mean you see souls in Scripture kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them, without being idolaters or blasphemers?
And see this study for refuting that Cath veneration is not worship based on a sppsd difference btwn hyperdula and latria.
From what we have seen you are far more Catholic than Protestant.
By now it should have been obvious that I contend that it is necessary to have fruits of repentant faith, "things that accompany salvation," (Heb. 6:9) if it is to be judged as being salvific.
Wrong as an overall or absolute statement, and quite the contrary, as seen by survey after survey, and election after election. You want to defend Catholicism based on what its historical teaching says, but ignore what it does and effectually teaches (which Scripture says is what shows what one true believes" Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20), while you only condemn Protestantism (which is too broad a term to be meaningful) including evangelicals based upon your (obviously very limited) experience, but ignore evidence to the contrary, and that of classical teaching. Or you even attack what clearly teaches that faith must have works (as with the Luther quotes), which indicates you have vendetta that disallows objectivity.
Go read some of classic evangelical commentaries, like Matthew Henry, Barnes. Clarke, Gill, JFB, etc, and you will see saving faith as that which accepts Christ as Lord, and holiness taught/exhorted as a necessary fruit of faith.
"It is not enough for salvation without the benevolent and holy acts to which it would prompt...Faith is not and cannot be shown to be genuine, unless it is accompanied with corresponding acts..." (Albert Barnes, James 2:17)
No doubt, true faith alone, whereby men have part in Christ's righteousness, atonement, and grace, saves their souls; but it produces holy fruits, and is shown to be real by its effect on their works; while mere assent to any form of doctrine, or mere historical belief of any facts, wholly differs from this saving faith. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, James 2:17)
Christ never will own those who yield themselves up [impenitently] to be the servants of sin. And it is not enough that we cease to do evil, but we must learn to do well. Our conversation will always be answerable to the principle which guides and governs us, Rom_8:5. We must set ourselves in earnest to mortify the deeds of the body, and to walk in newness of life. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, on Galatians 5:16-21)
Your pretending to have faith, while you have no works of charity or mercy, is utterly vain: for as faith, which is a principle in the mind, cannot be discerned but by the effects, that is, good works; he who has no good works has, presumptively, no faith.
(Adam Clarke, James 2:18)
"They [who engage in "envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like") thin are not children of God, and therefore cannot inherit the kingdom which belongs only to the children of the Divine family." (Adam Clarke, on Galatians 5:21)
"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. It is like a lifeless carcass, a body without a soul, Jam_2:26 for as works, without faith, are dead works, so faith, without works, is a dead faith, and not like the lively hope and faith of regenerated persons..." (Gill on James 2:17)
"...they that do such works of the flesh as before enumerated; that is, that live in the commission of these things, whose whole lives are employed in such work, living and dying in such a state, without repentance towards God and faith in Christ, shall never enjoy eternal life..." (Gill on Galatians 5:21)
"So Bengel, “If the works which living faith produces have no existence, it is a proof that faith itself (literally, ‘in respect to itself’) has no existence;.. (Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown on James 2:17)
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord,.... Receiving Christ is believing in him:...so that this is not a receiving him into the head by notion, but into the heart by faith; and not in part only, but in whole: faith receives a whole Christ, his person as God and man; him in all his offices...these Colossians had received Christ gladly, joyfully, willingly, and with all readiness; and especially as "the Lord", on which there is a peculiar emphasis in the text (Gill on Colossians 2:6)
there is little difference btwn Caths and the world in many moral views.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is a denial made without reference to any specific objective rule, which is just the opposite of what Luther is doing.
Then you are not reading or refuse to read what Luther clearly taught. How can you fail to see that such teaching that, "Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever" means faith is belief that which effects obedience toward its object, and that believers who don't do good works are simply not believers.
"faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present.." "there is no faith where there are no good works." 'Here we have it stated that where the works are absent, there is also no Christ." "...if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings.."
Talk about logical fallacies as warranting a conclusion. This is of no more weight than my saying that "the Catholic I know who live in sin all consider themselves to be believers," which even if true, does not mean the belief system is at fault.
They are not true believers and you are engaging in a fallacious no true Scotsman fallacy again. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Your one-sided flinging of charges and judgment of evangelicals testifies to being so driven by a agenda that it requires this.
So we are back to arguing based on your conclusive personal limited experience.
Scripture does teach faith always characteristically results in love and good works. (Heb. 6:9,10; 1Ths. 1:4-10)
No, as being rewarded for works testifies to effectual faith, which is rewarded.
How are you being consistent? If not everyone who has faith will characteristically love God and thus choose to do good then how can your polemical "Protestantism" be guilty of easy believism for holding that true faith need not be a faith that effects obedience?
Moreover, what kind of faith in any religion does not effect actions in accordance with what the Object of faith requires, including repentance when convicted of not doing so?
It is you who is being ambiguous and your constant rant in flinging such charges sounds makes you like one who has a personal vendetta. As for Scripture, does such a text as "this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God" (Ephesians 5:5) sound ambiguous?
Another bare assertion that is contrary to the substantiated facts.
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Once again both wrong and not being consistent if you are. For this bombastic statement places all (including "heretics" which the heretical RC church regarded all Prots as) who are not in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" - which you are not if you claim to be a Protestant - into everlasting fire, and makes the spiritual body of Christ as only being the same as the organic Roman Catholic church.
In reality only the mystical body of Christ, into which all believers are immersed by the Spirit at conversion, is the only true church for it always and only consists 100% of true believers, while the organic bodies inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, and the church of Rome (and liberal Prot churches) in particular is as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
"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." (CCC 838)
"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..." (CCC 818, 819)
"..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"
"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.
The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio
But the body of Christ which He purchased with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and is married to, (Eph. 5:25) is not restricted to any one particular organic church. To suppose it is relegates one as a cultist, or as one guilty of the sectarian spirit which the Lord reproved by affirming one who was manifestly doing ministry in His name but who was not part of the apostolic company. (Lk. 9:49,50)
It would thus apply the SSPX and SSPV Catholics, while it dams all she considers to be "heretics which was Prots and do not remain in "the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
And since Reformers and multitudes of Prots teach that the only kind of faith that saves is that which produces characteristic obedience to Christ, in basic doctrine and morals, and which evangelicals (yet) testify to being more unified in supporting than those whom Catholicism and liberal Protestantism counts as members;
Rome effectually infers that even Ted Kennedy type Catholics will finally attain Heaven due to their baptism and the merits of Rome (and their own), then you have such Protestants being more Catholic than Rome effectually is.
I don't know. It was an error that crept in. But it was a practice, not a doctrine.How long was it practiced?
Promote it, no. In fact, they were trying to stop it, and unsuccessful at it, just as the Church was bad at stopping the modern-day priest sexual abuse scandal. That doesn't mean they wanted it, accepted it, or demanded it. It means they did a bad job of policing it.Did the hierarchy promote and act the part?
No.Did the hierarchy from the pope down to the least of the clergy cite institution's policy to merit their actions?
Because that's not what "sacred tradition" is. First, it was certain clergy who acted in the name of Christ without having the authority of Christ given by his vicar, the pope. Not all clergy. And when it was discovered, they tried to stop it. It's probably true that some bishops enjoyed the money that was coming in through the practice. Sometimes people do things for worldly reasons forgetting what their purpose is-to shepherd the flock, not to be the wolf among the sheep.If all these men who ran the religious institution practiced and cited policy to justify the practice over many generations, then how is it not counted as sacred tradition?
Why would you wipe out the institution which has consistently done the works Christ demanded of us? The Catholic Church has fed more people, fed more people, given shelter to more people, educated more people, taken care of more sick people, and so on, than any other institution on the face of the earth, ever?Do we wipe out what the institution represented across a period from 1095 to 1343 and some more.....
It is not fair to say that because some priests acted wrongly, the entire church should be blamed. The Church never authorized the sale of indulgences, it was never a doctrine or approved practice.It is fair to say we had several hundred years of what you say illegal practice carried out by all the hierarchy of the institution from the pope down to the least clergy in a cash cow that brought truck loads upon truck loads of tangible gifts like a cash converter ready to be converted to wealth and then power.
Practices, such as priestly celibacy, can be changed. Sacred Tradition never changes.If several hundred years of this practice is not considered sacred tradition, then what is that the institution does that is in comparison????????
To answer all of this, once again, we can all agree that God's Word is sufficient for our salvation. The question then becomes, what is "God's Word". We believe that it is spoken to the apostles and successors, as Jesus told his apostles "Who hears you, hears me." Jesus told Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church, meaning that there could be no error in our faith. When error has tried to creep in, it has fallen away from the Church He created.So just how does this refute SS?
1. Does SS require only explicit statements or does it support decisions based upon manifest principles in Scripture (so that the morality of such a thing as cannibalism can be judged)?
2. Does Scripture support souls correctly discerning both men and writings of God as being so, and thus the establishment of a body of writings, all without an infallible magisterium (and even in dissent from the valid one)?
3. And if so, then why cannot Scripture, and thus SS, support the establishment of a larger body/canon of writings, essentially based upon their unique enduring Heavenly qualities and attestation?
4. As regards sufficiency, does SS refer to only what it formally provides, such as clear teaching on how to be saved, but not what it materially provides in principal, such as the addition of additional writings to Scripture that were provided, and what it materially provides, such as the use of eyes, reason, the teaching office of the church, non-binding practices supported by Scripture, the guidance and illumination of the Spirit of Christ, history, and the preaching of Scriptural Truths (even as "the word" - Acts 8:4), etc. though excluding as essential additions to Scripture? (I myself allow for spiritual "sign gifts," albeit with skepticism, even that God can "speak" to souls today, but not as new essential public revelation equal to Scripture, but with all such claims being subject to testing by Scripture.).
5. Has God ever failed to provide what was sufficient as essential for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith and life obedience, and where do so see Scripture as not being sufficient to provide this, even if by means of being deduced from Scripture?
6. Where do we see Catholicism speaking as wholly inspired of God and even providing new revelation as apostles evidently sometimes did in oral preaching?
7. If not wholly inspired of God, what is the basis for the veracity of a particular event not recorded in Scripture, or prophesied therein or recorded early history where it should be, and requiring belief in such over 1700 years after it allegedly occurred?
Your table of contents is different from the one the Holy Spirit gave the Church. I guess you don't believe that there is nothing new under the sun.Christians today call the Bible our scripture. Look at the very beginning to see a Table of Contents. I guess all you Catholics like to live as if it was 1700 years ago.
Well, the Bible was more than what Protestants say it is. There were more books. Things like Hannukah, Purgatory, and several other inconvenient concepts were taken away. In fact, I believe Luther had opinions on some NT books he didn't agree with, along with adding a key word or two here and there...that sort of speaks about personal interpretation. We believe in the Holy Spirit's inspiration.It was also in the Bible at the time of the Reformation when the whole Sola Scriptura concept was made famous. So the argument is what teaching outside the Bible at that time, 500 years ago, do the Catholics require.
Jesus Christ did leave the apostles with the OT canon. Luke 24.You do know that the Jewish Canon wasn't codified until at least the 2nd century? Some groups, namely the Sadducees and the Essenes, didn't take all of it as canonical.
Also, we don't believe that quotation of the OT in the NT constitutes canonicity, or that lack of quotation of the OT in the NT constitutes non-canonicity. There are many books in the OT canon that aren't quoted at all. Ecclesiastes, for one.
The Pharisees were equivalent to the church institution you claim is infallible. The Pharisees were from the exact mindset and breed. Jesus was against the establishment of what was alleged to be the church in that time.
This message is not to your religious institution. The message is relevant to the Ekklesia that stood around Jesus then. The words addressed them only as they had the important message to deliver and the faith to establish. Jesus tells them to not tell any man and that after he is killed raised and ascends into heaven then those standing with him who see those events will not taste death. In other words the gates of hell didn't prevail agaibst the 1st century Ekklesia as they were able to deliver the good news of the gospel and to establish the faith. How you or your institution infers this declaration to a church outside of the context of situation and context of 1st century Ekklesia culture is pulling the context right out, that us collapsing the context.
I haven't written anything. I simply accept the 1st hand testimoney of witnesss who were there, like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you saying that Matthew didn't write Matthew and Mark didn't write Mark and do on?
Your biships are not witnesses, neither am I, or you or your institution. The Ekklesia of the 1st century are the witnesses who can legally write witness statements, like the Acts of the Apostles. Your bishop, you, I or your institution if adding to these witness statements extra biblical content are not endorsed nor authorised to do so. What we say outside of these witness statements is hearsay. That is why any oral tradition that claims to be an authorised extension to the 1st hand witness testimonies of 1st century apostles must there prove it, for the burden of proof is on them because they are the ones making outlandish extra biblical claims outside of the 1st witness accounts.
As for your definition of the word Gnostic, this would fit those people who make claims outside of the 1st hand witness statements as if they are in the know of some special knowledge as compared to the rest of us. If a religious institution makes authoritative extra biblical claims that are not verified by 1st century witnesses then these claims form the gnosis definition.
Again your not making sense friend. The idea you present is that Matthew didn't write Matthew and John didn't write John and that somehow I need to prove to you that they did.
Listen it is agreed by concensus from the number of manuscripts and scholars that they are witness statements of those 1st century apostolic witnesses, therefore what is there to prove.
Your arguments are circular reasoninh and beg belief. You spent all your time making the authority of your bishop and institutional hierarchy owing to your infallible institution more credible than the 1st century apostolic witnesses or you may be claiming that the bishops have special gnosis powers to know things that we lay people don't know.
Either way you accreditation of your bishops to be the ones able to compile books or interpret them is along the same saying Jesus gave to the Pharisees.......
39You studycthe Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 39You studycthe Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
So Jesus instructs people to come to him to recieve life for he is the way the life and the truth and no one comes to the Father except through him.
Now your religious institution accredits itself a go between man in order to get to Jesus in the same way the Pharisees set themselves up through their religious institution.
How can one distinguish between your religious institution and the Pharisical one if you both setup the institution as a go between man.
Jesus charged the Pharisees and their institution as follows......
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
The name of the game is to establish a one to one personal relationship with Jesus. Any religious institution setting itself up as an obstacle or middle man is thereby preventing direct access to Jesus. To prevent direct access to Jesus means that the religious institution is claiming it is the way the truth and the life, in other words it clsims to be Jesus himself or in his place.
We know that no were in the first habd witness statements do apostles teach this doctrine and to do so would be diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ who says let the children cone to me and prevent them not.
But the books aren't named, specifically. The question is, why? The Church used the Canon which was read in liturgical celebrations. Because they were used there, they were considered divinely inspired and useful for instruction in holiness.Jesus Christ did leave the apostles with the OT canon. Luke 24.
So, how do you know you can trust what was written down? I mean, people get things wrong all the time! How do you know you can trust it?
I don't know. It was an error that crept in. But it was a practice, not a doctrine.Promote it, no. In fact, they were trying to stop it, and unsuccessful at it, just as the Church was bad at stopping the modern-day priest sexual abuse scandal. That doesn't mean they wanted it, accepted it, or demanded it. It means they did a bad job of policing it.No.Because that's not what "sacred tradition" is. First, it was certain clergy who acted in the name of Christ without having the authority of Christ given by his vicar, the pope. Not all clergy. And when it was discovered, they tried to stop it. It's probably true that some bishops enjoyed the money that was coming in through the practice. Sometimes people do things for worldly reasons forgetting what their purpose is-to shepherd the flock, not to be the wolf among the sheep.
Why would you wipe out the institution which has consistently done the works Christ demanded of us? The Catholic Church has fed more people, fed more people, given shelter to more people, educated more people, taken care of more sick people, and so on, than any other institution on the face of the earth, ever?
It is not fair to say that because some priests acted wrongly, the entire church should be blamed. The Church never authorized the sale of indulgences, it was never a doctrine or approved practice.Practices, such as priestly celibacy, can be changed. Sacred Tradition never changes.
Back to indulgences, from the article in Catholic Encyclopedia on Indulgences:
Abuses
It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). And, as God'sforbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evilpractices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt (see LUTHER). On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.
Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give thelibelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Haut-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-ofpresumption and sacrilegious audacity". In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned at the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.).
Here is what Jesus said about them:
Matthew 23: 1-3 (NRSV) - "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it"
If they're equivalent that means you should do whatever the Catholic Church says and follow it.
Interesting opinion but I don't agree with your interpretation. I believe Jesus was referring to the visible church he founded with Peter as the foundation as the context clearly shows.
When I said your written tradition I was referring to your bible. Tradition is based on 1st century apostolic teaching. Those apostles who wrote scripture also instructed people orally. Why should those they instructed interpret their writings in a way that contradicts what they taught orally? You can't know the apostle Matthew wrote Matthew or that his gospel is scripture without relying on tradition
The entire Tradition of the Church is based on the deposit of faith given by the apostles. What you're doing is divorcing what they wrote from what they said and following an interpretation of their writings that contradicts what they taught orally. We know what the apostles taught through apostolic succession and know it was preserved faithfully by the unanimous teaching of their successors. If you reject that, you have to reject scripture as well unless you have a 1st century witness who can prove the gospels were written by authentic apostles of Jesus.
I did not offer a definition of the word Gnostic so you misunderstood what I wrote. What I'm saying is the catholic/orthodox church had one set of books they considered scripture and the Gnostics had another set of books they followed. Why do you accept the 27 catholic NT books and not the Gnostic books since you reject the catholic tradition?
The evidence for the apostles' written tradition (the 27 NT books) is the same as the evidence for their oral tradition. I don't understand why you demand proof for one but not the other.
Consensus from whom? The catholic/orthodox tradition.
I'm not a member of any institution nor do I have a bishop. The earliest Christians of the first 3 centuries relied on church tradition for their beliefs. They did not reject the church or their bishops because they didn't agree with their own personal interpretation of scripture. It would have been irrational since they relied on church tradition to know which books were scripture.
That passage is about them studying the Old Testament and not seeing that it testifies about Jesus being the Messiah. Not relevant to your claim.
You clearly have a problem with authority and I don't think anything I say will change that.
They were considered divinely inspired because of what is recorded in Luke 24. I do not believe the apostles were confused on what was inspired Scriptures. Thus the TaNaKh mentioned by Christ in Luke 24.But the books aren't named, specifically. The question is, why? The Church used the Canon which was read in liturgical celebrations. Because they were used there, they were considered divinely inspired and useful for instruction in holiness.
As if that absolves Rome, who actually required RC rulers to exterminate the "heretics" that heretical Rome referred to:The facts are clear...
The burning at the stake during the Inquisition was carried out by civil governments at the RCC's request, not by the RCC itself.
Regardless of how much you want to make 1Cor. 3 as providing "the clearest and strongest biblical teachings on Purgatory," among other disallowances, it simply remains that this cannot be Purgatory because this judgment and its suffering does not commence at death, as with Purgatory, and thus the vain offering of indulgences" in trying to escape it (which the text also does not support), but awaits the Lords return, as substantiated.1 Cor 3 speaks of the judgment of God where the works of the faithful will be tested after death. It says our works will go through “fire,” figuratively speaking.
Wrong: no works are not being purified, but burned (for he that defiles the temple of God "him shall God destroy" - (1Co. 3:17), so that the planter suffers "loss," (1Co. 3:15) - not a gain, as would be the case if it was purgatorial cleansing- while the works that remain are nowhere said to be purified, but that they "abide. "In Scripture, “fire” is used metaphorically in two ways: as a purifying agent (Mal. 3:2-3; Matt. 3:11; Mark 9:49); and as that which consumes (Matt. 3:12; 2 Thess. 1:7-8). So it is a fitting symbol here for God’s judgment. Some of the “works” represented are being burned up and some are being purified.
There simply are no personal imperfections that need to be “burned up,” but tares will be, but not at the actual judgment seat, and the text does not say that there are any imperfections actually at the judgment seat itself, but the judgment refers refers to the testing that takes place on that Day of the Lord:What is being referred to cannot be heaven because there are imperfections that need to be “burned up” (see again, Rev. 21:27, Hab. 1:13).
The CCC is a poor substitute for Scripture, which does not teach this."All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (CCC1030)."
As a point of fact, all believers are said to be with the Lord at death, or will be at the Lord's coming, as shown, not purgatory and the holy city that Rev. 21:27 refers to is of Heaven, but Heaven is manifestly of greater sphere, for if you really want to press the issue of judgment not being possible in Heaven if there are imperfections there, then you must place the Great White Throne judgment someplace else.Scripture is very clear when it says, "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven" (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]... are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong...
"Even more explicit about Purgatory?! Where does this even say it refers to the afterlife, versus the example used, replete with judge and officer?In Matthew 5:24-25, Jesus is even more explicit about Purgatory.
Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26).
So you must resort to a book that even for most of A.D. history was disputed or held in doubt by RCs as being Scripture proper, and which teaches that it is good that offerings be made for those who died in mortal sin, for which Rome says there is no hope? Spare us the special pleading about how maybe they repented at death.Actually, Albion, he is correct.
Biblical proof for purgatory
2 Maccabees 12: 38-45 (RSVCE)
Then Judas assembled his army and went to the city of Adul′lam. As the seventh day was coming on, they purified themselves according to the custom, and they kept the sabbath there.
39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (what is this fire to test our works? And even if our works burn up we will suffer but we will still be saved. We do not suffer in heaven, and our works cannot be judged until after our death.)[/QUOTE]Matthew 5:24-26 (parable for purgatory. We are pure in heaven, and there is no salvation in hell, so where is this prison that we go to pay our "coins" aka sins?)
Matthew 12:31-32 (if we are pure in heaven, where can sins be forgiven in this age to come?)
Matthew 18:23-35 (same parable, God will send us to jail to repay our debt, but we are pure in heaven, so where is this jail?)
Hebrews 12:22-24 (who are the just men MADE perfect? Obviously they were not perfect when they died, but were MADE perfect. Where?)
Philippians 2:9-11 (where is this under the earth? Not hell, as that is the devils domain, and it is obviously a seperate place to both earth and heaven, so what is this place under the earth that all knees shall bow before Jesus?)
What?! These clearly do not clearly point to a place, outside of heaven and earth called purgatory.These clearly point to a place, outside of heaven and earth,
Is that you NYer?ECFs on the teachings of Purgatory/place to become pure after death
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?