B
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
Odell
Guest
There are fathers who go as far as saying eternal life to those who do good. You see Catholics believe in the development of doctrine – that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Jesus promised as much in John 16:13.*
You may very well present someone in the ancient Church who subscribed to SOME of your tenets. Yet, this same person will not agree with your faith on other things.
Thus, it all comes down to your interpretation vs. ours/theirs And so, what makes your interpretation any better than ours or theirs? What is your objective standard for proving that your interpretation is correct? It cannot be the Bible, since you don’t adhere to scripture alone. So it must be something outside the Bible. So, what is it?
My question for you is this: Since the Bible can’t speak or reprimand you when you incorrectly interpret it, can you know with certainty that what you believe is true. (YES or NO?) If yes, how so?
You may very well present someone in the ancient Church who subscribed to SOME of your tenets. Yet, this same person will not agree with your faith on other things.
Thus, it all comes down to your interpretation vs. ours/theirs And so, what makes your interpretation any better than ours or theirs? What is your objective standard for proving that your interpretation is correct? It cannot be the Bible, since you don’t adhere to scripture alone. So it must be something outside the Bible. So, what is it?
My question for you is this: Since the Bible can’t speak or reprimand you when you incorrectly interpret it, can you know with certainty that what you believe is true. (YES or NO?) If yes, how so?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Jesus said the same thing John 5:25-29
*
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.*
This is not ignored by protestants. Especially from the reformed baptist church that I came from, we consistently proclaimed the reality of this verse. I think we stressed it so much that even Catholics would have been very uncomfortable.
As far as whether I know if the faith that I am teaching is right or wrong or if the interpretation of the passage is right or wrong, we have the Scripture itself which is written to human beings. We probably cannot read it nearly as good as the first recipients, but we have some basis to understand some major portions of it. On top of this, we have tradition. We have the early Church fathers, other heretical writings, the 7 councils,etc,etc…
However, as you comb through very carefully, you will see that had the saints from the Catholic Church been here today, they would have all been corrected by modern day papists. What does that tell you?
Time after time, the fathers interpret the scripture in ways that Catholics would never.
So what? They believe the Eucharist? So do many. So what? Baptismal regeneration for infants? So do many other than catholics.
What do they believe that is makes the modern roman catholic church valid?
Primacy of Rome? Of course, anyone during that era would have been. Because at this point it was the leading authority.
But as time took its place, sooner of later people began to notice that the development of the Catholic Church was going beyond mere development. This is why the Orthodox split.
It was only a matter of time before the providence of God awakened the minds of intelligent people. Not rebels. But people who are willing to give their life for the gospel.
Do you know how much blood was shed from the roman catholic church? There was a cave of protestants hiding from Catholic tyranny with 4,000 man woman and children, and the catholics lit up and burned the entrance to kill off all the bodies of the “heretics”.
The light of God’s grace cannot remain in a place that gives itself no place for repentance.
*
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.*
This is not ignored by protestants. Especially from the reformed baptist church that I came from, we consistently proclaimed the reality of this verse. I think we stressed it so much that even Catholics would have been very uncomfortable.
As far as whether I know if the faith that I am teaching is right or wrong or if the interpretation of the passage is right or wrong, we have the Scripture itself which is written to human beings. We probably cannot read it nearly as good as the first recipients, but we have some basis to understand some major portions of it. On top of this, we have tradition. We have the early Church fathers, other heretical writings, the 7 councils,etc,etc…
However, as you comb through very carefully, you will see that had the saints from the Catholic Church been here today, they would have all been corrected by modern day papists. What does that tell you?
Time after time, the fathers interpret the scripture in ways that Catholics would never.
So what? They believe the Eucharist? So do many. So what? Baptismal regeneration for infants? So do many other than catholics.
What do they believe that is makes the modern roman catholic church valid?
Primacy of Rome? Of course, anyone during that era would have been. Because at this point it was the leading authority.
But as time took its place, sooner of later people began to notice that the development of the Catholic Church was going beyond mere development. This is why the Orthodox split.
It was only a matter of time before the providence of God awakened the minds of intelligent people. Not rebels. But people who are willing to give their life for the gospel.
Do you know how much blood was shed from the roman catholic church? There was a cave of protestants hiding from Catholic tyranny with 4,000 man woman and children, and the catholics lit up and burned the entrance to kill off all the bodies of the “heretics”.
The light of God’s grace cannot remain in a place that gives itself no place for repentance.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I would invite you to give a call to the Catholic Answers Apologist line in addition to the various articles and sources on the main Catholic Answers site.However, as you comb through very carefully, you will see that had the saints from the Catholic Church been here today, they would have all been corrected by modern day papists. What does that tell you?
Such would be a rather grand mis-statement. And actually in anything that was lacking or unclear or confused to a particular Saint --they would correct themselves. They would profess the Faith of the Church and be Obedient to the Teaching Authority of the Church.
Time after time, the fathers interpret the scripture in ways that Catholics would never.
Same response…and one can say that individuals make mistakes…and heck one can not expect a good deal of 21st century Catholics to get so heavy into the various senses…
So what? They believe the Eucharist? So do many. So what? Baptismal regeneration for infants? So do many other than catholics.
I refer you to the whole Catholic Answers main site…
What do they believe that is makes the modern roman catholic church valid?
It was not their belief that makes it “valid” --the Faith and Church came before their belief --but they are witnesses.
And please the term to use is not really “Roman Catholic Church” but “Catholic Church”
Primacy of Rome? Of course, anyone during that era would have been. Because at this point it was the leading authority. Hum…actually such does not follow. The Church was rather persecuted by Rome. And even when the “new Rome” became in a way the more important city in the Empire the Bishop of Rome was still the successor of Peter
But as time took its place, sooner of later people began to notice that the development of the Catholic Church was going beyond mere development. This is why the Orthodox split.
I refer you again the CA website.
It was only a matter of time before the providence of God awakened the minds of intelligent people. Not rebels. But people who are willing to give their life for the gospel.
HUm…such would be a Protestant line. It is a shame that all those Christians who had true life in Christ in the Chruch for all them centuries where asleep…and mistaken
Do you know how much blood was shed from the roman catholic church? There was a cave of protestants hiding from Catholic tyranny with 4,000 man woman and children, and the catholics lit up and burned the entrance to kill off all the bodies of the “heretics”.
Without commenting on a particular suggested event – It is important to note that there are many myths and polemic in these sorts of things. And that yes Catholics and Protestants yes both killed each other. One can point to the various horrors inflicted by Protestants. I refer you again to CA site.
The light of God’s grace cannot remain in a place that gives itself no place for repentance.
Thankfully such the Catholic Church is not such a place. But rather the Grace of God remains despite the sins of many of her members. The Church constantly calls for repentance and reform
B
Bookcat
Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon_en.htmlrepentance.
Little excerpt:
"Let us forgive and ask forgiveness! While we praise God who, in his merciful love, has produced in the Church a wonderful harvest of holiness, missionary zeal, total dedication to Christ and neighbour, we cannot fail to recognize* the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren*, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.
Let us confess, even more, our responsibilities as Christians for the evils of today. We must ask ourselves what our responsibilities are regarding atheism, religious indifference, secularism, ethical relativism, the violations of the right to life, disregard for the poor in many countries.
We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church."
–Bl. Pope John Paul II
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
The Catholic Answers website does not answer specific pointed questions. From the hours I have put in, all I can see are general remarks and teachings of the Catholic Church.
For instance, when Scott Hahn speaks about the Papacy, all he does it prove that the “rock” from Matthew 16 is Simon, then he points to Isaiah 22 which has nothing to do with Peter or the new testament era of salvation. There is no close examination or questions that are dealt with in Isaiah 22. How many old testament scholars teach this that you know of? Most of the Catholic Church history did not go into detail about this Isaiah 22, in fact they might have not even known about it’s connection to Matthew 16, yet the still held to the primacy of Rome nonetheless. It just shows the ingenuity in apologetics where in history such was not found.
The issue of justifcation in the early church is not satisfied by the Catholic Teaching. What father taught the Catholic view? It’s an honest question which should concern all of us. There are many ways of dodging the question such as “Just because they didn’t write about it doesnt mean they didn’t believe it” will just not work; for the fathers definitely speak about justification, but never go into the catholic view.
The fact that they believed that serving in the newness of the Spirit and the necessity of good works for the future resurrection gives no support to the catholic position for all the original confessions of the protestant reformation claim the necessity of good works for salvation (understood rightly).
For instance, when Scott Hahn speaks about the Papacy, all he does it prove that the “rock” from Matthew 16 is Simon, then he points to Isaiah 22 which has nothing to do with Peter or the new testament era of salvation. There is no close examination or questions that are dealt with in Isaiah 22. How many old testament scholars teach this that you know of? Most of the Catholic Church history did not go into detail about this Isaiah 22, in fact they might have not even known about it’s connection to Matthew 16, yet the still held to the primacy of Rome nonetheless. It just shows the ingenuity in apologetics where in history such was not found.
The issue of justifcation in the early church is not satisfied by the Catholic Teaching. What father taught the Catholic view? It’s an honest question which should concern all of us. There are many ways of dodging the question such as “Just because they didn’t write about it doesnt mean they didn’t believe it” will just not work; for the fathers definitely speak about justification, but never go into the catholic view.
The fact that they believed that serving in the newness of the Spirit and the necessity of good works for the future resurrection gives no support to the catholic position for all the original confessions of the protestant reformation claim the necessity of good works for salvation (understood rightly).
B
Bookcat
Guest
I think your missing some of the magazine articles…much there.The Catholic Answers website does not answer specific pointed questions. From the hours I have put in, all I can see are general remarks and teachings of the Catholic Church.
You can give a call to the Apologists line any time.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Be sure to read the actual text of the Prayer:The .
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/documents/ns_lit_doc_20000312_prayer-day-pardon_en.html
Read from beginning to end…
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I should have specified. I am referring to the repentance that is needed concerning the elevation of Mary and it’s creation out of post-apostolic gathering of fragmented material, all dating many years after the 3rd century; I am referring to the repentance on their teachings in the council of Trent; and that they return to the original witness of the gospelvatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_20000312_pardon_en.html
Little excerpt:
"Let us forgive and ask forgiveness! While we praise God who, in his merciful love, has produced in the Church a wonderful harvest of holiness, missionary zeal, total dedication to Christ and neighbour, we cannot fail to recognize* the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren*, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.
Let us confess, even more, our responsibilities as Christians for the evils of today. We must ask ourselves what our responsibilities are regarding atheism, religious indifference, secularism, ethical relativism, the violations of the right to life, disregard for the poor in many countries.
We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church."
–Bl. Pope John Paul II
B
Bookcat
Guest
Hum…well there can be no repentance for what was not done or what was not sin or for what is truth.I should have specified. I am referring to the repentance that is needed concerning the elevation of Mary and it’s creation out of post-apostolic gathering of fragmented material, all dating many years after the 3rd century; I am referring to the repentance on their teachings in the council of Trent; and that they return to the original witness of the gospel
The Church did not create itself out of post-apostolic gathering of fragmented material. Any fragmented materials are fragmented by the seventeen or so centuries that have taken place since the early centuries.
The Church was alive and well – and knew she existed. And knew the reality of her life and teachings etc. They were lived realities.
And the fact that a persons early childhood records have been reduced to fragments by the ravages of time and fires and flood etc – does not call into question his birth and continued existence. He knows he is quite alive and who he is.
Or rather in this case – the fact that many of early childhood records have been lost or destroyed for my Great Great Grandmother --does not mean that she did not she was born or know who she was then or that she did not live according to that knowledge. Nor that others then did not know such. Nor that my family now does not know who she was back then. We just do not have all the records we would like due to fires, floods, time etc.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Will do.
I would like to get back to the main topic here.
A brief look at Romans 3:21-26 will help in understanding what it means for Abraham’s faith to be counted as righteousness. I am trying to see the NT teaching a justification by faith and works. At the moment, as you can obviously tell, I do not see this. I would consider myself an anglican with apostolic succession in confessed belief. I believe what the Fathers teach on the faith, while confessing they are infallible. All the major doctrines are apostolic.
“But now, the righteousness of God apart from the law is unveiled, though being witness by the Law and Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe, for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, for in times past He looked over sins that were previously committed, that now he should demonstrate his righteousness, so as to be just and justifier of the one who believes in Jesus” (Rom 3:21-26)
This “righteousness of God” is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16-17). Whatever meaning we give it, we must recognize that it is “given” to human beings (3:22); for it is said that this “righteousness of God” (v21) is “to all and on all who believe” (v22). Therefore it has the human creature as it’s destination. The background information behind and in the middle of this “righteousness of God” given to human beings is the disability for human beings, as they are under sin (3:9), to be justified in God’s sight by their own good works of righteousness (see 1-3:20). However, now they can find a way to be “justified” before God, and it is not by works (4:1-4), for if it is by works, then grace is no longer grace (Rom 9:5-14); yet Paul says we are “justified” by His grace! (3:24).
This “righteousness of God” (3:21) being given to human beings is equivalent to the meaning of 3:24 “being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a sacrifice of atonement”. Therefore, the righteousness of God and the sacrifice of Jesus are closely related, unlike any Catholic exegete will confess. This righteousness of God is somehow communicated to the human being through faith, apart from works, by means of the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus. Therefore, the “righteousness of God” should not be interpreted as a “new obedience” or “infusion of God’s moral righteousness” but rather “acquittal” or “right-standing with God”.
The cross of Jesus washes away all of our iniquities. This new status we gain through the cross of Jesus is the “righteousness of God”.
Therefore, Abraham’s faith being accounted for righteousness is referring to the gift of righteousness that is taught in Rom 3:21, which comes from the atonement of Jesus.
How can we put the catholic teaching into this context?
I would like to get back to the main topic here.
A brief look at Romans 3:21-26 will help in understanding what it means for Abraham’s faith to be counted as righteousness. I am trying to see the NT teaching a justification by faith and works. At the moment, as you can obviously tell, I do not see this. I would consider myself an anglican with apostolic succession in confessed belief. I believe what the Fathers teach on the faith, while confessing they are infallible. All the major doctrines are apostolic.
“But now, the righteousness of God apart from the law is unveiled, though being witness by the Law and Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe, for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, for in times past He looked over sins that were previously committed, that now he should demonstrate his righteousness, so as to be just and justifier of the one who believes in Jesus” (Rom 3:21-26)
This “righteousness of God” is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16-17). Whatever meaning we give it, we must recognize that it is “given” to human beings (3:22); for it is said that this “righteousness of God” (v21) is “to all and on all who believe” (v22). Therefore it has the human creature as it’s destination. The background information behind and in the middle of this “righteousness of God” given to human beings is the disability for human beings, as they are under sin (3:9), to be justified in God’s sight by their own good works of righteousness (see 1-3:20). However, now they can find a way to be “justified” before God, and it is not by works (4:1-4), for if it is by works, then grace is no longer grace (Rom 9:5-14); yet Paul says we are “justified” by His grace! (3:24).
This “righteousness of God” (3:21) being given to human beings is equivalent to the meaning of 3:24 “being justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a sacrifice of atonement”. Therefore, the righteousness of God and the sacrifice of Jesus are closely related, unlike any Catholic exegete will confess. This righteousness of God is somehow communicated to the human being through faith, apart from works, by means of the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus. Therefore, the “righteousness of God” should not be interpreted as a “new obedience” or “infusion of God’s moral righteousness” but rather “acquittal” or “right-standing with God”.
The cross of Jesus washes away all of our iniquities. This new status we gain through the cross of Jesus is the “righteousness of God”.
Therefore, Abraham’s faith being accounted for righteousness is referring to the gift of righteousness that is taught in Rom 3:21, which comes from the atonement of Jesus.
How can we put the catholic teaching into this context?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Then read:
Pope Benedict XVI:
In the Catechesis last Wednesday I spoke of how man is justified before God. Following St Paul, we have seen that man is unable to “justify” himself with his own actions, but can only truly become “just” before God because God confers his “justice” upon him, uniting him to Christ his Son. And man obtains this union through faith. In this sense, St Paul tells us: not our deeds, but rather faith renders us “just”.
Keep reading: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I’m sorry the pope here pays almost no attention to the sacrifice of Jesus. Quite unlike the apostolic voices.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I can quote many pieces of Sacred Scripture that pays no attention to the sacrifice of Jesus. So Sacred Scripture is problematic? No of course not.I’m sorry the pope here pays almost no attention to the sacrifice of Jesus. Quite unlike the apostolic voices.
St. Paul can go on in his letters for some time on Faith without mentioning the Sacrifice of Christ --such does not mean that he does not profess that salvation comes through the death and resurrection of Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI had already devoted an audience a few weeks prior in that series on St. Paul to “the cross”.
But he does in that vary one I quoted state:
“in following St Paul, we should gain a new awareness of the fact that precisely because we are justified in Christ, we no longer belong to ourselves but have become a temple of the Spirit and hence are called to glorify God in our body with the whole of our existence (cf. 1 Cor 6: 19). We would be underselling the inestimable value of justification, purchased at the high price of Christ’s Blood…”
Pope Benedict XVI proclaims and “pays attention” to the sacrifice of Jesus – all the time…and indeed all over the world.
“The sacrifice of the Cross of Christ is the unique and unrepeatable event with which the Father showed his love for us in a luminous way… The sacrifice of the Cross ensures that we become “God’s property” because the Blood of Christ has redeemed us from sin, cleanses us from evil, removes us from the slavery of sin and death.”
-Pope Benedict XVI 20 June 2012
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I am not referring to his general teaching I’m talking specifically about his treatment of justification. There is so much missing about the death of Jesus that it is frankly scary
B
Bookcat
Guest
He was not giving there a dissertation on the the subject. He was discussing Faith and Works in Paul. It is a limited context of an audience (well 2) in a series on Paul during the year of St. Paul.I am not referring to his general teaching I’m talking specifically about his treatment of justification. There is so much missing about the death of Jesus that it is frankly scary
As I noted Paul himself in discussing the subject of Faith and works could go on for some time without mentioning the Sacrifice of Christ…
There is nothing “scary” any more than the Pope giving an address on Christmas without getting into the death and resurrection of Christ. (though I think he actually has gotten into the paschal mystery then…)
He was focused in there on “Faith” and “works” in Paul and presuming the entirety of the Gospel as a background.
Indeed in that very audience he states:
“in following St Paul, we should gain a new awareness of the fact that precisely because we are justified in Christ, we no longer belong to ourselves but have become a temple of the Spirit and hence are called to glorify God in our body with the whole of our existence (cf. 1 Cor 6: 19). We would be underselling the inestimable* value of justification, purchased at the high price of Christ’s Blood*…”
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Well where is catholic teaching on justification and its relation to Christs death? I understand what the catechism says
But what would catholics do with the explicit forensic meanings of dikaioo in Romans 3:24 when the means of application are Christs sacrifice and nothing else
But what would catholics do with the explicit forensic meanings of dikaioo in Romans 3:24 when the means of application are Christs sacrifice and nothing else
B
Bookcat
Guest
I would refer you to Jimmy Akin as a good source for your questions on such.But what would catholics do with the explicit forensic meanings of dikaioo in Romans 3:24 when the means of application are Christs sacrifice and nothing else
Give him a call on Thursdays show.
R
Richca
Guest
Will do.
I would like to get back to the main topic here.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
I believe this.
But I deny a process to our being forgiven and blameless before God. Meaning the thief on the cross is in heaven as well as mother theresa
But I deny a process to our being forgiven and blameless before God. Meaning the thief on the cross is in heaven as well as mother theresa
- Status
- Not open for further replies.