D
david_ruiz
Guest
sorry folks ,still learning computer .added comments to several posts wrongly that is ,became part of the post i was replying to ,right in their text .Sorry
- Status
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
No david, this is how you want to see it. There is no conflict between tradition and Scripture only between what you think Scripture says and tradition.
David what are you talking about? Your arguments are turning into disjointed, incoherent thoughts.
What is “Marionism” and is it charitable?
Are you suggesting it doesn’t matter to Catholics? That is quite the statement david. This is another one of those false premises I talked about in your other post.
Says you. There are plenty of “Bible Christians” who say otherwise. Some are members of this forum
What do you use to “clarify” the canon of the Bible? Please for all of us here tell us, using only the Bible, which books we, as believers, should consider Scripture. Remember, no tradition to “clarify”. Your standard.
God bless
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Sorry david, you are not going to paint me in a corner. I am well aware that there is a difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura. Even still there are differences within sola scriptura (depending on the individual believer), which is exactly why I asked you to explain to me your understanding of it. That way I could answer it based on what you believe.
This argument is such a stretch that it is hard to follow. Peter did not use the Gospel of John to come to his conclusion so based on your above premise, we can reject it. Peter did not use Matt. to come to his conclusion so based on your above premise, we can reject it. Peter did not use Luke so based on you premise we can reject it… Should I continue?
God bless
P
PAboy57
Guest
early christians made sure to gather the bones of the holy people and protect them just like they did with peter and paul.
why no bones for Jesus and Mary??? i’m sure if their bodies were around their bones would have been gathered and buried in a sacred plot.
i simply choose to believe in mary’s assumption because it is very logical for it to be that way.
besides, i don’t want to have to explain to Jesus why i didn’t think highly of His mother.
take care everyone and thanks for the interesting discussion.
why no bones for Jesus and Mary??? i’m sure if their bodies were around their bones would have been gathered and buried in a sacred plot.
i simply choose to believe in mary’s assumption because it is very logical for it to be that way.
besides, i don’t want to have to explain to Jesus why i didn’t think highly of His mother.
take care everyone and thanks for the interesting discussion.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Dave you said:
If so, then according to the CC, Christ’s Spirit uses non- Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation.…All who have been justified by faith in Baptism** are incorporated into Christ.** So you see, all these non-Catholic churches, since they are incorporated into Christ, are part of the fractured Mystical Body of Christ and, as per the CCC, **are a means of salvation for others. **
My only point is: All of the 16th, 17th…21st century churches were not founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost - the birth of Jesus’ church. Only one church was founded by Jesus Christ forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth as opposed to partial truth, and in no way am I impugning the wonderful works of these man-made churches.
If the CC is the church founded by God, and forever guided by the HS, the spirit of truth, into all truth (revealed truth that is) - then the CC, thanks to the mystical guidance of the spirit of truth working in the backdrop, is right about the AOM. If the CC is wrong about the AOm, then the holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth until the end of time…failed to prevent the fallible leaders of the CC from teaching spurious doctrine.
If the HS failed to prevent the catholic church leaders from teaching error free doctrine eg, the assumption of Mary which is doubted by almost all protestants, then the logical conclusion could be drawn that the HS could have failed to prevent the CC leaders from doing the same regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible; is that a fair assessment?
*817
In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—**for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”***269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:
818
"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . 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."272
819
"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, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to catholic unity.
Are you referring to people who were catholic but left the church, like my sister?
If so, then according to the CC, Christ’s Spirit uses non- Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation.…All who have been justified by faith in Baptism** are incorporated into Christ.** So you see, all these non-Catholic churches, since they are incorporated into Christ, are part of the fractured Mystical Body of Christ and, as per the CCC, **are a means of salvation for others. **
My only point is: All of the 16th, 17th…21st century churches were not founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost - the birth of Jesus’ church. Only one church was founded by Jesus Christ forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth as opposed to partial truth, and in no way am I impugning the wonderful works of these man-made churches.
If the CC is the church founded by God, and forever guided by the HS, the spirit of truth, into all truth (revealed truth that is) - then the CC, thanks to the mystical guidance of the spirit of truth working in the backdrop, is right about the AOM. If the CC is wrong about the AOm, then the holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth until the end of time…failed to prevent the fallible leaders of the CC from teaching spurious doctrine.
If the HS failed to prevent the catholic church leaders from teaching error free doctrine eg, the assumption of Mary which is doubted by almost all protestants, then the logical conclusion could be drawn that the HS could have failed to prevent the CC leaders from doing the same regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible; is that a fair assessment?
*817
In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—**for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”***269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:
Code:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . 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."272
819
"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, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to catholic unity.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I was going to post something very similar. Not only would they have collected the bones, they would have built a church over the burial cite. This is an excellent point and it isn’t based on a speculation, it reflects early Christianity and even today, there are relics placed inside the alters of Catholic Churches. Good point!
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Dave…
When I say universally divided I am referring to the autonomous churches in the world today isolated from one another, and of course in all of these isolated autonomous churches both the wheat and the tares can be found together.
Amen to that. Every man-made church produces wonderful fruits and salvation can be found in all of these churches.
People in the CC, laity or otherwise are all fallible sinners, so yes we all err and we all fail time to time, and we all sin; thank God for confession which brings us back in full communion with our savior after said sin.
Yup…
You have that backwards. Jesus instituted His Mystical body, the church on Pentecost, and He built His church on the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the 1st century.
I am simply saying that every protestant church has a founder and a time when they founded their church, and his or her name is not Jesus Christ and none of them were instituted in the first century. Jesus said: I will build my church…He did not say I will build my institution.
I don’t understand your statement.
I am not arguing against any man-made church; I once belonged to one, and they all contribute so much love and charitable works (helping the poor, sending out missionaries and opening schools and universities) - to the world on so many levels. I am not saying that the CC is any better than any other church. I am simply saying that I came to believe that the CC, in my humble opinion, is the church of Matthew 16 - the church built on Kepha, against which the gates of hell will never prevail, regardless of the wolves masquerading as sheep in the house of the living God. I am simply saying that I came to believe that the CC is the pillar and foundation of truth for the simple biblical fact that the HS, the spirit of truth, is forever guiding the CC into all truth, if in fact the CC is the church founded by Jesus Christ. Doctrinal integrity, thanks to the ever presence of the HS, cannot be compromised in the church founded by God and that is why Jesus’ church is called the pillar and bulwark of truth, and I believe that church to be the CC. If you believe that the CC is not that church please feel free to prove it, and then show me where I can find that church in the world today.It must be puzzling because how can one argue against a man -made church that does practically the same things you do :convict the world of sin and of the righetousnees of Christ and the Good News of His sacrifice on Calvary ,and His Resurrection and of His love and calling to every human being :to helping the poor and sending out missionaries and opening schools and universities to the Christian endf the life in the Body,and of holiness and sacraments and Sunday worship etc. etc. etc.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
You asked how does one know he is being led by the spirit ,as Job suggests ? “My sheep know my voice”.How did Abraham, Moses, etc. ? Also St.Augustine states the voice “will keep with the firmament (His) book” (Confessions-Book 13 Ch.34)David before we get to far; what is your understanding of Sola Scriptura?
Some do. Some don’t. I try not to generalize
You are creating a false premise. Catholics are not saying that it is the “church and tradition vs the Holy Spirit” you are. In fact Catholics have told you that we believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit so your argument is null. You are welcome to create a strawman and attack it but it will be just that, a strawman and not Catholic teaching.
That is begging the question. How does one determine when one is being led by the Holy Spirit? It is not enough for you to quote Job and then say, “see I am led by the Holy Spirit”.
Yes, Catholics believe that Peter was led by the Holy Spirit. We continue to believe that his successors are as well. This has nothing to do with Catholic’s not understanding the leading of the Holy Spirit. Again, you are trying to create a false premise.
One could also use your exact argument to show that Scripture was not enough
God bless
D
david_ruiz
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN]
D
david_ruiz
Guest
What is kepha (aramaic ?) ? The cannonized scripture is Greek: Petra and petros are used (Peter is a "stone "and then there is a Rock).Thank you for saying kind things Look ,the history of protetsantism is quite well known and very transparent .There are many documents and writings and dates etc-from th e16 th C on. The men involved were learned Catholics who loved their church.They were not rebellious by nature , there motive was transparent -freedom of conscience in matters of faith and conviction ,There seems to be no ulterior motive:money ,power ,for they got little of both. Indeed , like the early apostles some lost their lives .Again transparency …The catholic church , from PC point of view has problems proving origins at Penetecost .The Roman Catholic institutiuon is not in the bible -that is 70 years after Pentecost(Revelations) .There are no 1st century documents to show popery ,priesthood, Assumption , that bishop of Rome was Head or anything of succession etc .The first you hear of Peter the rock and biblical reasoning for popery from Rome headship is after Constantine. Motives for such proclamations , using scripture beagn then ,and could be suspect. Power was to be gained(Rome would rule the church ,instead of the 4 patriarchs (Jerusalem ,Antioch ,Constatnople ). monetary increase could follow also .Unity was needed but acts shows us another way (which could not happen before Constantine because of persecution -) Plenty of evidence for you church after 4th century .Plenty. Sorry , just my thoughts.Hey Dave…
When I say universally divided I am referring to the autonomous churches in the world today isolated from one another, and of course in all of these isolated autonomous churches both the wheat and the tares can be found together.
-]Good. you agree with scripture in God’s plan to allow this .Please stop stop trying to show illegitimacy of protestants because of “wheat and tears”( division). We may be isolated institutionally but are we not still part of the body ,united in Christ ?
/-]
Amen to that. Every man-made church produces wonderful fruits and salvation can be found in all of these churches.
People in the CC, laity or otherwise are all fallible sinners, so yes we all err and we all fail time to time, and we all sin; thank God for confession which brings us back in full communion with our savior after said sin.
-]We were talking about churches failing not people /-]
Yup…
You have that backwards. Jesus instituted His Mystical body, the church on Pentecost, and He built His church on the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the 1st century.
I am simply saying that every protestant church has a founder and a time when they founded their church, and his or her name is not Jesus Christ and none of them were instituted in the first century. Jesus said: I will build my church…He did not say I will build my institution.Code:Agree. Do you view the Mystical body ,the Bride of Christ and His church to be one in the same? I do.
-]This is like the kettle calling the pot black. Is not the Catholic church grafted onto the Jewish vine ,as St.Paul stays ? Are not protestant churches simply an offshoot from Catholicism ? Both on the same vine, foundation ,bearing fruit ,as you admitted protestants are ?
/-]
I don’t understand your statement.
I am not arguing against any man-made church; I once belonged to one, and they all contribute so much love and charitable works (helping the poor, sending out missionaries and opening schools and universities) - to the world on so many levels. I am not saying that the CC is any better than any other church. I am simply saying that I came to believe that the CC, in my humble opinion, is the church of Matthew 16 - the church built on Kepha, against which the gates of hell will never prevail, regardless of the wolves masquerading as sheep in the house of the living God. I am simply saying that I came to believe that the CC is the pillar and foundation of truth for the simple biblical fact that the HS, the spirit of truth, is forever guiding the CC into all truth, if in fact the CC is the church founded by Jesus Christ. Doctrinal integrity, thanks to the ever presence of the HS, cannot be compromised in the church founded by God and that is why Jesus’ church is called the pillar and bulwark of truth, and I believe that church to be the CC. If you believe that the CC is not that church please feel free to prove it, and then show me where I can find that church in the world today.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Sorry about last few posts .Still trying to learn how to use tools for quoting and boxing etc ,like everybody else does so nicely
B
beehumble
Guest
You know, the cannon of the New Testament was formulated by the Catholics. Don’t you think you protestants should throw away the cannon as we have it, hold a council or group-think or something amongst yourselves and make up your own cannon? There are plenty of other books out there that the Catholics didn’t include. I mean, come on. Be bold. Be daring. Really protest! Protest it all, even the cannon! I mean, you say Catholics got everything all wrong, so by that thinking we got the cannon of the NT wrong too. So fix it up for yourselves will ya? Then you can have all of it to yourselves! You can have your bible alone, faith alone, AND your own cannon alone too!
Boy I wish you would do it. Step up! Really be Protestant! If not, then that is tantamount to admitting that Catholics got the cannon right, and if they got the choosing of the cannon right, then obviously the Catholics chose the books they did based on the Catholic interpretation of those books, including the keys of the kingdom, the real presence etc. Instead of saying we are wrong, just throw out our books and get your own. We wrote them for us, after all, not any group of protestants, or muslims, or hindu peoples, etc. The way we evangelize has always been the way Jesus taught us - not with a book but by sending them out two by two to preach the good news. Missionaries don’t show up and give people the bible and tell them to read it and then depart. No, first missionaries live amongst the people and help them and also preach to them about the good news. Our Church was well on its way before letters (epistles) were written, and certainly well established before we culled through our lists of letters and writings and settled on our cannon.
We didn’t need the bible to establish our Church - we established it without it. Our Bible is not a catechism of practices. It is a summation of major events of New Testament times, but certainly not much of what took place is actually in there. It says that itself, for Pete’s sake, right there in the book! Well, if you protestants ever read that verse (the one that says everything that happened in those days is not recorded here) and wonder about what happened that is not written there, stop by a Catholic church and sit in on a Mass or a baptism or a wedding or an ordination or a funeral or watch people go to confession and you will get to see for yourself some of the things Jesus taught the Apostles in the 3 years He was with them that are not in there, and that He said teh Holy Spirit would always (repeat: always) help them truthfully (i.e. correctly) remember forever (repeat: until the end of time). [He didn’t say ‘always, oh excpe that period between 400 and 1500 A.D. when you will forget, always except for that small hiccup there - but fear not I will send you a man named Luther who will save and restore my Church’. At least, that is not in my Bible. What verses, I wonder, do protestants interpret to mean “always except from 400 to 1500 A.D.”? Before you laugh, it might be possible they interpret it this way- remember, some protestants now interpret the Bible as having Jesus say being gay is aok.]
Now please go write and cannonize your own set of books and stop arguing with us about what the books about and of our Catholic faith, written by those of our Catholic faith, for those of us in the Catholic faith, mean. Thank you.
And if protestants find this offensive, remember this: I am offended. Offended that you people had the gall once upon a time to take our holy books and twist and distort and pervert them, and not being satisfied with that, try to make us believe your scandalous version, to boot! The nerve, really. Where do you get off? You should be sued for copyright infringement of some kind, really. If I were to take Catcher in the Rye and rewrite certain sentences and reprinted it, and claimed “this is what J D Salinger meant to write”…you see my point?
Oh and when you find it written anywhere in history that says Mary’s bones were once buried here, or are here, or over there, please let us know. While we know where many bones of saints are, some are indeed lost. But even those that are lost have legends or stories of where they once were. The head of John the Baptist is recorded in history as having been in several places for example. So when you find any reference to Mary’s bones, please let us know. (Or maybe you think she was considered, as many of you say, nobody special, so nobody bothered to even care for her grave site like they have done for many important NT saints, so they let her bones be scattered to the wolves and her grave be forgotten.)
God bless you.
Boy I wish you would do it. Step up! Really be Protestant! If not, then that is tantamount to admitting that Catholics got the cannon right, and if they got the choosing of the cannon right, then obviously the Catholics chose the books they did based on the Catholic interpretation of those books, including the keys of the kingdom, the real presence etc. Instead of saying we are wrong, just throw out our books and get your own. We wrote them for us, after all, not any group of protestants, or muslims, or hindu peoples, etc. The way we evangelize has always been the way Jesus taught us - not with a book but by sending them out two by two to preach the good news. Missionaries don’t show up and give people the bible and tell them to read it and then depart. No, first missionaries live amongst the people and help them and also preach to them about the good news. Our Church was well on its way before letters (epistles) were written, and certainly well established before we culled through our lists of letters and writings and settled on our cannon.
We didn’t need the bible to establish our Church - we established it without it. Our Bible is not a catechism of practices. It is a summation of major events of New Testament times, but certainly not much of what took place is actually in there. It says that itself, for Pete’s sake, right there in the book! Well, if you protestants ever read that verse (the one that says everything that happened in those days is not recorded here) and wonder about what happened that is not written there, stop by a Catholic church and sit in on a Mass or a baptism or a wedding or an ordination or a funeral or watch people go to confession and you will get to see for yourself some of the things Jesus taught the Apostles in the 3 years He was with them that are not in there, and that He said teh Holy Spirit would always (repeat: always) help them truthfully (i.e. correctly) remember forever (repeat: until the end of time). [He didn’t say ‘always, oh excpe that period between 400 and 1500 A.D. when you will forget, always except for that small hiccup there - but fear not I will send you a man named Luther who will save and restore my Church’. At least, that is not in my Bible. What verses, I wonder, do protestants interpret to mean “always except from 400 to 1500 A.D.”? Before you laugh, it might be possible they interpret it this way- remember, some protestants now interpret the Bible as having Jesus say being gay is aok.]
Now please go write and cannonize your own set of books and stop arguing with us about what the books about and of our Catholic faith, written by those of our Catholic faith, for those of us in the Catholic faith, mean. Thank you.
And if protestants find this offensive, remember this: I am offended. Offended that you people had the gall once upon a time to take our holy books and twist and distort and pervert them, and not being satisfied with that, try to make us believe your scandalous version, to boot! The nerve, really. Where do you get off? You should be sued for copyright infringement of some kind, really. If I were to take Catcher in the Rye and rewrite certain sentences and reprinted it, and claimed “this is what J D Salinger meant to write”…you see my point?
Oh and when you find it written anywhere in history that says Mary’s bones were once buried here, or are here, or over there, please let us know. While we know where many bones of saints are, some are indeed lost. But even those that are lost have legends or stories of where they once were. The head of John the Baptist is recorded in history as having been in several places for example. So when you find any reference to Mary’s bones, please let us know. (Or maybe you think she was considered, as many of you say, nobody special, so nobody bothered to even care for her grave site like they have done for many important NT saints, so they let her bones be scattered to the wolves and her grave be forgotten.)
God bless you.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
D
david_ruiz
Guest
K
KathleenGee
Guest
David,
Catholics are of the Oral Tradition…think about.
Catholics are of the Oral Tradition…think about.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Dave…
Six times, the word Cephas, a transliteration of the Aramaic word for Kepha (Rock as opposed to stone or pebble) - as per all protestant scholars - is used in the bible when addressing Simon. The whole petra/petros argument even seemed silly to me as a former Lutheran.
Agreed. Very transparent.
That is why I don’t belong to one of these protestant churches, any longer. I wanted to read the documents that date back to the apostolic age and it was these documents that compelled me to become a catholic.
And these churches were founded by learned catholics who left Jesus’ church, to start their own church. As a former protestant I simply wanted to belong to the church founded by God.
That’s awesome but not enough for me to leave Jesus’ church in favor of one of their churches.
Dave if the CC, from the PC point of view, has problems proving origins at Penetecost, then all PC’s absolutely cannot, from a CC point of view, as well as a PC point of view, trace their origins back to Pentecost! I can provide logical proof if you like?
The CC, based in Rome is the Mystical body of Christ the church, of which Jesus is the savior. Please don’t downplay Jesus’ church: I don’t do that when speaking of PC’s. Not one PC is named in the bible either. Perhaps you can give me the name of the church in the world today that is the historical church founded by God on Pentecost, if in fact it’s not the CC and definitely not any of the PC’s?
- The title pope is nothing more than an affectionate term adopted for the bishop of Rome. You are starting to sound like my sister. LOL…
- If you are going to make that argument against the AOM then you must apply that same criteria to every single PC in the world today, all using the man-made tradition - sola scriptura as their sole rule of faith. The CC adheres to both oral transmission of God’s word as well as written transmission of God’s word, as per the bible, so just because the teaching is not found in the 1st century matters naught to me, but it should matter to you regarding the same argument I have made against all of the PC’s and SS.
- As far as the bishop of Rome being the Head or apostolic succession, well, let’s just say, these were critical to my conversion to the CC as opposed to the EOC.
That’s insane dude and a blatant falsehood. Peter’s primacy in Rome as the bishop of Rome is pronounced in the early church writings. Let me know and I’ll hook you up my brother, with the data.
Perhaps, instead of just your thoughts, you could provide historical data to bolster your arguments? Rome had leading primacy among the other 4 Patriarchs. Even if they didn’t (but they did, even from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) - if what you are using (conjecture) - to discredit the CC as the church founded by God, is true, then what’s that say about your church or the rest of the PC’s, regarding your requisite criteria for any church being the church founded by God in the first century?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
- Status