E
eelpis
Guest
The Church says that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that they are free from error. What they say is plain to see.
- Status
E
eelpis
Guest
Ecce mater. See your mother.
E
eelpis
Guest
The same as now, although it was not explicitly stated…
E
eelpis
Guest
God who revealed himself cannot decieve or be decieved. It’s called faith.
G
guanophore
Guest
Only those who depart from the Deposit of Faith are deceived. It is not the fallible people attached to the Church who make her pure and infallible, but the Divine nature of her Head and Heart. God cannot deny HImself. We can trust in His very great and precious promises that He will lead us into all truth.
J
justasking4
Guest
J
justasking4
Guest
If you knew your own history you would never make such a claim.
J
justasking4
Guest
It is true God will not decieve but men have and will. Note this warning for 2 Peter 2:1;
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
Or look at the warning of Acts 20:29-31:
28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Even the Lord Jesus in Revelation 2:2 commends the church at Ephesus for rebuking leaders in their own church for being false.
Deception is always something Christians must always be on guard within and outside the church.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am under no misapprehension about the misbehavior of Catholics through the centuries. The difference between us is that I recognize that sinners, though joined to the pure Body of Christ, are not the completeness of the Body of Christ. The Head of the Body is Christ, and the Soul is the HS. These divine elements of the Body is what make her pure and infallible. The sinful humans who belong to her do err, and bring shame upon the church, but that does not invalidate the purity of His Teaching. That is like saying that Judas betraying Jesus made everything He taught invalid!
And there have always been a holy remnant of them that cling to the Truth that Jesus taught. There is no amount of betrayal that can invalidate what God wants to build. When He said “I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail”, He meant that, and He has done it.
Read what you are writing, ja4. Those in error bring destruction upon themselves only, not the Church, who Christ has purified with His blood. those who choose to leave may do so,but they don’t have the power to make impure what He has purified.
The drawing away of disciples, tragic as it is, still does not equal to the ruination of the Church. What Christ has built, no one has the power to destroy.
It is ok, ja4, we know you are here, and we are on guard! :knight2:
E
eelpis
Guest
The 4th commandment: Honor your father and mother. Jesus honored his mother. Christians are to imitate Jesus so we honor his mother too.
See your mother is what Jesus says from the cross when he gives us Mary as our spiritual mother.
Mary is mentioned in the first book of the bible and in the last. Besides she appears on every page because she is the one who has most of all taken the word of God to her heart and pondered it. In fact so much so that she gave birth to the living Word of God.
You may shrug all you want but I doubt Jesus want’s you to disdain his mother. (How would you react if someone was telling contemptous lies about your mother?)
J
justasking4
Guest
Do you realize that the Scriptures never refer to Mary as being the mother of the church? Not one verse states this. Secondly, there is no such verse or passage that exhorts Christians to consider Mary their mother.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, we read them differently.
Catholics read scripture with Apostolic glasses. Those that don’t have these often don’t see things in there that we do.
If you wish to reject the great gift that God has given to the Church in sharing His mother with us, you may certainly do so. Why would you try to dissuade others who take Him at His word when He says “many more mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, lands…” in the Kingdom?justasking4 said:Not one verse states this. Secondly, there is no such verse or passage that exhorts Christians to consider Mary their mother.
J
justasking4
Guest
This may sound convincing but it has no substance. Since the NT is all that we have from the apostles we can search the Scriptures and see if they ever refer to her as “mother of the church”. Anyone who has searched the NT for this will find that such a thing was never taught by them. The glasses you are wearing are giving you a false view of the world.
If what you say is true about the passage you quote does that mean the church has many mothers and fathers that it can pray to? If so, what would be some examples of this?
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
Says who? Not the Apostles, certainly.
St. Paul said explicitly acknowledged that not all binding teachings were contained in the epistles:
(emphasis added)
St. Paul further explained the mode of transmission - passing it down through qualified teachers of the Word, not waiting for an endless supply of epistles:
St. John explained why - it would be impossible to write down everything they knew, and it was easier to explain in person:
You’re concluding these doctrines aren’t correct because they’re not Apostolic, and not Apostolic because they’re not explicit in the Bible, but then willing to swallow without question this mere assumption (that anything not explicitly in the Bible is incorrect) without any Biblical support… and in fact, a lot of Biblical support in the opposite direction.
Tradition supports the idea of Sacred Tradition, and the Bible; the Bible
supports the idea of Sacred Tradition and the Bible. Starting from either source, you end up with the other one as well.
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
Yeah, those who have died before us in the Faith. Spiritual “fatherhood” is pretty well established in the Bible. As this blog (andrew4jc.blogspot.com/2008/09/spiritual-fatherhood-in-catholic-church.html) answers…
St. Timothy refers to the Jewish religious leaders on Earth as his “brothers and fathers,” and Abraham as “our father Abraham” (cf. Acts 7:2), without fear even of misappropriating the title “Our Father” (cf. Matthew 6:9-13) by bestowing it upon a mere human, saintly though he was.
J
justasking4
Guest
The problem with this is that all we have from the apostles today are the writings found in the NT only. Those that lived with them and were taught by them may have known more but we don’t know what it was since there are no written records of it. Again, all we have today are the NT Scriptures. There is no apostles writings out known to us outside the NT.
St. John explained why - it would be impossible to write down everything they knew, and it was easier to explain in person:
This was true while he was alive but not for us today since we don’t know what John said to these believers except what is recorded in the NT.
I’m saying that the Catholic church has doctrines and teachings not of the apostles since some of these doctrines were never taught by them. The marian doctrines are a case in point.
Has the Catholic church ever produced some kind of list what these Sacred Traditions are? It can’t be in the written Scriptures since the Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures are 2 different things.
C
cfrancis
Guest
The only reason you can say this is Tradition - that which is not recorded in Scripture.
How can you say “the Catholic church has doctrines and teachings not of the apostles” when above you stated clearly all you have is what they wrote (and for Paul, not all of what he wrote)?
This is a great statement from you! The only way you know what is written Scripture is from Sacred Tradition!
G
guanophore
Guest
Previously you have stated that “we” refers to “bible Christians” or “true Christians”. This being the case, then of course, “we” (those who have rejected the Apostolic Traditions) do not have anything else. Since you are forming your doctrine from only part of the revelation, it is only natural that you will not find “substance”.
When Jesus gave His mother to the disciple he loved at the foot of the cross, we understand that every disciple that loves Him can receive her as mother. We also see in Revelation that the offspring of His mother are those that follow His teachings.
It may seem to you that these things have no “substance” since you are blind to them. This is a result of wearing anti-Catholic glasses when you read.
I understand that you feel it is your mission here on CAF to convince us of that. Unfortunately, you have not been successful. I guess that is why you feel that you need to keep trying. YOu seem to really want us to exchange the richness of our apostolic faith for the truncated version that you are using.
You are right. When we are baptized into the Body, we become members one of another. Jesus said that anyone who does the will of His father in heaven is His mother, brother, and sister.
Why are you trying to make this into a problem? It is not a problem for those who have received the Apostolic faith, because we know that Scripture was never intended to contain all the revelation.
It is not a problem for you, apparently, since you are satisfied within your community that your truncated version is adequate. I don’t understand why you keep saying it is a problem?
There are plenty of written records, in addition to scripture, but even if there were not, it would still not be a problem for those of us who are obedient to the apostolic command that we hold fast to the traditions that we are taught. Holding fast is required, not writing.
You are certainly free to limit yourself to a small portion of the truth, if you so desire. Does that have to create problems?
Well, you don’t, since you have separated yourself from those who kept this information.
Since you have come to this conclusion, ja4, why are you here? You have already made up your mind about what you believe is true. Can you not now go in peace? Clearly you are not here to get any “Catholic Answers”.
I don’t see how that is relevant, since you have rejected all the lists you have been given to date.
The divine revelation is not “two different things”. It is one “thing”. It is the deposit of faith given once and for all to the Apostles. It is expressed in two strands, sacred Tradition, and sacred writings.
You will not be able to access it, ja4, because you have already made up your mind that it does not exist. It is not possible to apprehend a truth once you have made up your mind that it is not there.
B
Belloc_Fan
Guest
My problem is this:
(A) Catholic Marian doctrines are, according to you, extra-Biblical. They’re not in the Bible explicitly, but not contradicted.
(B) Sola Scriptura, however, is *anti-*Biblical. It’s not only not found in the Bible, but we just agreed that the first Christians were absolutely **not **sola Scriptura, and/or “Bible Christians.”
So you’re using an anti-Biblical methodology(A) to discredit extra-Biblical doctrines(B). That seems fundamentally unsound to me.
And upon conceding that (1) Sola Scriptura is incomplete revelation (that the Apostles knew, said, and taught things from Christ other than what it is in Scriptura), you don’t really have a basis to say things like “I’m saying that the Catholic church has doctrines and teachings not of the apostles since some of these doctrines were never taught by them,” especially when your basis is just that the Apostles didn’t write them down elsewhere. That’s the point of all those Scriptures ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15’s “either by word of mouth or by our letter”). Explicitly, Scripture tells us that there were some traditions the Apostles didn’t write down, and still held to be binding.
You claim, without Scriptural evidence, that these other traditions just faded away and disappeared. Catholics claim, with Scriptural evidence, that the Apostles ensured that qualified teachers would pass these traditions on (2 Timothy 2:2). Thus, Sacred Tradition is Biblical, Q.E.D., while sola Scriptura is not.
J
justasking4
Guest
Not all that Jesus or apostles was recorded in Scripture. However, we don’t know what these other teachings were since they were not written down.
Secondly, how can something be binding on us if we don’t know exactly what it is?
What are these Sacred Traditions that were passed on to qualified teachers that are not recorded in the written Scriptures?
- Status