Sola Scriptura

[HisKid1973]

You are right that you don't just walk in, share your story, and become a Catholic. Becoming a Catholic is meant to be a lifetime commitment, so it takes some instruction of about 10 months, sometimes longer, for an adult convert. The process is called RCIA, but it is meant to follow the process practiced by the Early Church. But anyway, I am happy for your 40 years of blessings, and I hope you have many more.

Becoming a "christian" is a lifelong commitment..It appears the original apostles looked at things differently..Blessings of Christ to U also..

 

[Standing Up]

You are right that you don't just walk in, share your story, and become a Catholic. Becoming a Catholic is meant to be a lifetime commitment, so it takes some instruction of about 10 months, sometimes longer, for an adult convert. The process is called RCIA, but it is meant to follow the process practiced by the Early Church. But anyway, I am happy for your 40 years of blessings, and I hope you have many more.

What you mean?

 

[steve_bakr]

What you mean?

???

 

[HisKid1973]

I tend to agree with that, with some caution. We should not think of joining the "church" as if it were seeking entrance into some lodge or club. But baptism is the entrance into the church of Christ, and some instruction in the faith is appropriate if needed by the individual. What's more, steve is correct that the churches of the first century did require considerable preparation before a newcomer were admitted to the holy mysteries, i.e. the Lord's Supper. But that doesn't mean that extensive preparation in the denominational distinctives of whatever local church one is interested in associating with is a good idea.

Nothing wrong to learn your faith/study the scriptures, but you need to come into the fold first.What gets us in the door, the initial cry out out to the Lord.We see Peter preaching the gospel adding 3,000 to the church from just one street preaching opportunity one day..Take a good bet they weren't all baptized within 24 hours. Yet he says they were added to the church..It wasn't till a year later I was water baptized but I was out telling my coworkers about my conversion to Christ soon after I returned to work after my repentance.It was incredible experience, I felt washed. I got home tired and went to bed. I laid in bed feeling flooded by love. I laid there for hours not knowing if I was crying or laughing. I fell into a deep sleep..What was ironic was my friend/coworker druggie was born anew about a month later.

 

[steve_bakr]

Nothing wrong to learn your faith/study the scriptures, but you need to come into the fold first.What gets us in the door, the initial cry out out to the Lord.We see Peter preaching the gospel adding 3,000 to the church from just one street preaching opportunity one day..Take a good bet they weren't all baptized within 24 hours. Yet he says they were added to the church..It wasn't till a year later I was water baptized but I was out telling my coworkers about my conversion to Christ soon after I returned to work after my repentance.It was incredible experience, I felt washed. I got home tired and went to bed. I laid in bed feeling flooded by love. I laid there for hours not knowing if I was crying or laughing. I fell into a deep sleep..What was ironic was my friend/coworker druggie was born anew about a month later.

This is a great testimony! BTW, in our Church, those receiving instruction before Baptism--called Catechumens--are already an important part of the Church. It is call Baptism of desire. If one of these were to die prior to their Baptism, they would be buried as Baptised Christians--ie., as members of the Church.

 

[HisKid1973]

This is a great testimony! BTW, in our Church, those receiving instruction before Baptism--called Catechumens--are already an important part of the Church. It is call Baptism of desire. If one of these were to die prior to their Baptism, they would be buried as Baptised Christians--ie., as members of the Church.

Thank you. So are these catechumens part of the church. Have they been reborn(repented) previously ?

 

[steve_bakr]

Thank you. So are these catechumens part of the church. Have they been reborn(repented) previously ?

They may not have had the dramatic experience that you were blessed with, but they have expressed their repentence from sin and expressed their desire to live for Christ and with Christ as their savior.

 

[HisKid1973]

They may not have had the dramatic experience that you were blessed with, but they have expressed their repentence from sin and expressed their desire to live for Christ and with Christ as their savior.

So basically they allready are in the church then according to the early church.

 

[steve_bakr]

So basically they allready are in the church then according to the early church.

Yes, Catachumens are embraced by the Church as her own. (CCC,1249) Those seeking to be in full communion with the Church as Baptised Christians are called Candidates. That's what I was, because the Church recognized me as a Baptised Christian. After receiving instruction--Catechesis--I was received into full communion, which means I can participate fully in the Sacraments, including the Eucharist: the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[HisKid1973]

Thank you. So as a christian they wouldn't be able to take communion with you till they
choose to believe in transubstantiation, correct

 

[daydreamergurl15]

They're are not mutually exclusive.

One can have a false teaching that is old.

One can have a false teaching that is new.

And realize that the teaching is false, not a new revelation came from God.

But all this talk is a distraction from our previous conversation...what is it that the Scripture lacks in the nature of Christ that the Catechism provides?

 

[Montalban]

But all this talk is a distraction from our previous conversation...what is it that the Scripture lacks in the nature of Christ that the Catechism provides?

I don't follow the Catholic catechism, but I already explained what the bible lacks - Jesus!

It can only be a pointer to Jesus, not Jesus himself.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't follow the Catholic catechism, but I already explained what the bible lacks - Jesus!

It can only be a pointer to Jesus, not Jesus himself.

1. John 20:31, "these things are written (inscripturated) so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you have life in His name."


2. I don't think anyone debates that. And if practicing the Rule of Scripture had anything to do with where Jesus resides, you'd have a point (irrelevant - but a point).


3. Using Scripture as the rule in norming as we evaluated disputed dogmas among us ("The Rule of Scripture" aka "Sola Scriptura") has to do with embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us. While I DO think that Jesus is found in Word and Sacrament, obviously that's an ENTIRELY different point for a different thread and day (not permitted here). Embracing Scripture as the rule in norming is about what is embraced as the rule in norming, not where Jesus lives. I think you know that.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Josiah, I think that you are presenting a very Protestant viewpoint of the Catholic Church. Who the Church is accountable to is God, and to the sacred oral Tradition, the Sacred Scriptures, and to the responsibility of the Magesterium (teaching authority, collectively, of those Bishops who are in full communion with the Roman Bishop). It is the combination of those three pillars which serve as the foundation for truth.


.

Thank you for your kindness and articulate response...

I disagree, of course. As I learned so powerfully in the RCC, the RCC accepts accountability to none (except God as it itself so determines). The "three-legged-stool" of which you speak IS relative to what the RCC claims is the SOURCE of it's teaching, but it is wholly unrelated to the issue of norming or accountability in the case of the RCC and it's own teachings and claims: It's own self is the only norm it acknowledges, and then only for OTHER teachers. And of course, the "three-legged-stool" is only itself: 1) Its own individual definition, choices and interpretation of its own "Tradition", 2) Its own individual interpretation of the Scripture in the heart of its own self, 3) Its own individual magisterium of its own self as chosen by its own self from the clergy of its own self pleadged to uphold the teachings of its own self. For itself to claim THAT norma normans would obviously be purely circular - but it doesn't do that, it doesn't embrace any norma normans for its own self (such would suggest that it could be wrong in these matters, a proposition it passionately rejects). I think one of my Catholic teachers put it well. In Catholicism, it's true because it's taught (by the RCC); in Protestantism, it's taught because it's true. So, for the RCC the relevant issue is power - what has the power to be embraced with quiet, docilic, submission. In Protestantism, the issue is truth.


Thanks again. May all Easter blessings be yours...


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Albion]

It can only be a pointer to Jesus, not Jesus himself.

We ALL agree to that. The issue always is, "IS the Bible an adequate or trustworthy 'pointer' to Jesus?" The reformed churches say "yes," while the unreformed churches say "no."

 

[Standing Up]

We ALL agree to that. The issue always is, "IS the Bible an adequate or trustworthy 'pointer' to Jesus?" The reformed churches say "yes," while the unreformed churches say "no."

It's really a silly comment, else we would all be followers of John of Damascus or Josephus or LDS.

Yes, Christ is at the right hand of God, we know this from scripture.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I don't follow the Catholic catechism, but I already explained what the bible lacks - Jesus!

It can only be a pointer to Jesus, not Jesus himself.

Scripture doesn't claim that it is Christ. So I'm not sure why anyone would try and find the actual true Christ which is sitting on the right hand of God--which we're told in Scripture.

Scripture does however tells us that we can come to know that He is the Son of God. And it is pinned by the one who came to witness about God and Jesus--the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve_bakr]

I don't follow the Catholic catechism, but I already explained what the bible lacks - Jesus!

It can only be a pointer to Jesus, not Jesus himself.

Holy Scripture, specifically the NT, I think, is a testimony to Jesus Christ; it is not Jesus Christ himself. I would have to say, however, that the Word of God is contained in the word of God. But as John says at the end of his Gospel, all the books in the world could not contain all the wonders of Christ. Two other vital testimonies to Jesus Christ are contained in Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Apostolic Church. And a vital relationship with Jesus Christ is contained in the Holy Eucharist. God has provided us with these ways of knowing him.

 

[HisKid1973]

Two other vital testimonies to Jesus Christ are contained in Sacred Tradition .

What are these two, that the original apostles didn't know

 

[steve_bakr]

What are these two, that the original apostles didn't know

Both sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession have been passed down to us from the Apostles.