M
MrS
Guest
Dang, you beat me… I was gonna say it was Lite, cuz it tossed 7 books to make it easier to carry.LOL…it’s lite because it is not weighed down with the traditions of men.
:blushing: :
now… be nice
Bible Discussion with Family baptized but no longer practicing Catholics
- Status
now… be nice
R
Reformed
Guest
I prefer the abridged addition for easier reading. So what’s so doctrinal in the other 7 books? Would it change my understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ on my behalf? :coffeeread: :juggle:Dang, you beat me… I was gonna say it was Lite, cuz it tossed 7 books to make it easier to carry.
now… be nice
M
MrS
Guest
To your question…LOL…it’s lite because it’s not weighed down with the traditions of men.
Isn’t the contents of Sacred Tradition about 1,000 percentage greater in size than the Holy Scriptures?
Sacred Tradition (thanks for using the singular as it should be) is the collection of all that was taught to the Apostles… the Depost of Faith, if you wish.
That is all that existed for many decades.
Much of Sacred Tradition (handed on orally and some in letters), was eventually canonized into the Catholic Bible… the library of books that include the Old Testament and much of Sacred Tradition.
so… to answer the question… NO, it is not 1,000 percentage.
but, it is by nature greater… as attested to in Scripture ( “… not all…”)
.
M
MrS
Guest
Maybe, maybe not. But the more of Scripture that you understand correctly, the more likely you covert to Catholicism. Many of our most knowledgable Catholics are converts who were rooted in Scripture and History.
Many of those who leave Catholicism are not even sure how to spell Bible.
oh well… gotta go… going to a Catholic wedding:thumbsup: ttyl
.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Are you really asking what’s so “doctrinal” about God’s Word? I gather you are aware that man lives “by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4).
It’s not just 7 books that have been carved out of Holy Writ by Protestantism, but they’ve also truncated the books of Daniel and Esther. Check your version of the book of Esther…it doesn’t even mention God! Now, go ahead and read the Book of Esther inspired by God which appears in every ancient Christian manuscript of Scripture in other that fragmentary condition, the one which every church of Christ before the advent of Protestantism calls “Holy Scripture,” here: Book of Esther .
Isn’t it odd that a book of the Bible would not mention God? Your Esther is unique in that regard, which really should make someone question why.
All of Catholic teaching is indeed regulated and nourished by Sacred Scripture. What I cannot find, however, is Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura either explicit or implied within Holy Writ, as these are the “traditions of men” adopted by Protestants, along with their truncated Bible.
If a sect cannot even authentically recognize the written Word of God, then I have little trust in their preaching.
By what authority do Protestants, for example, omit portions of Daniel from their Bible? See here: How Big is Your Daniel? When I ask this specific question to my Protestant brothers, not one has attempted to explain it cogently. I imagine its because there is no tenable reason for rejecting the larger recension of Daniel which every Church of Christ since the early Church has called “our Scripture.”
The first step in being authentically “catholic” is to reject the sectarian claims of Protestantism with regard to a most fundamental question: which Bible is really the written Word of God?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Amen! We are called to be joined to the Church in body and in soul. Those joined in body, but not in soul place themselves outside the Church built by Christ.
And yet the Catholic Church teaches that there is but one savior, our Lord Jesus Christ. So what you seem to believe about the Catholic Church is nothing more than a caricature.
By Church is meant the “assembly of the faithful.” Moreover, in a certain but mysterious way the members of Christ which are his Church are indeed the hands and feet of Christ in this world. In other words, the Church is the one Body and Christ the Head, and Christ Himself prayed for unity among His members. So, being joined in unity, at least by desire, with the Church of Christ which is joined to the Head is essential to salvation. How can one be joined to Christ the Head but not joined to His Church, His Body?
Catholicism teaches, “In essentials unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.” Consequently, there is an authentic plurality of speculative theology in Catholicism, and rightly so. For this is how the faithful can grow in their understanding of the deposit of faith. However, there isn’t a plurality of what is “essential.” I wish the same could be said about our Protestant brethren, who can’t seem to agree among themselves, based upon the “Bible alone,” that which is “essential” in Christianity.
Dogma, doctrine, and discipline are the three D’s which bind all Catholics in one unity, just as it did in NT times. Those who obstinately foresake ecclesial discipline of the lawful pastors of the universal Church, or obstinately deny dogma or doctrine taught by them place themselves outside full communion of the unity of the Church.
Christ built a Church upon a rock He Himself called Peter (Kepha), not so it would be some “invisible” or loose gathering of disciples, but instead so that it would in fact be the “pillar and foundation of truth” the Bible calls the Church.
How could one “tell it to the Church” as St. Matthew exhorts if the Church was some invisible idea? How could the Bible demand of the faithful: “obey your prelates and submit to them” (Heb 13:17) if such sacerdotal hierarchy was in fact “invisible” or lacked authority? The ecclesiology portrayed by Protestants has nothing in common with the ecclesiology of the Sacred Authors of Holy Writ.
What does the “sin of Korah’s rebellion” (Num 16, Jude 11) mean if there is no visible sacerdotal hierarchy of the Church to actually rebel against?
Instead, the Bible refers to the Church figuratively as having possession of a “lampstand.” Such lampstands are obvious to all who have eyes to see the Church of Christ throughout the world.
One who is overwhelmed by the plurality of doctrine taught by people calling themselves Christian ought to “test everything, hold fast to the good.” I have. I applied what I call “calculatis eliminatus” to the over 33,000 different Christian denominations. Start by asking one question: How Big is Your Daniel? The answer to that question should bring the huge number of authentic Christian churches to only those who can actually trace their history to the advent of Christ. From there, a study of history regarding the primacy of Peter will show why the Catholic Church pastored by the successor of Peter is the true Church of Christ, all other claims notwithstanding the force of evidence.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Actually that’s all he preaches. He’s a great motivational speaker – but he has less theological aptitude than Bill Maher.
I can’t believe he has a retirement fund? It’s almost laughable …
There’s some real gullible folks out there.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
you are joined in “soul” by grace through faith.
We are joined to the “body” by grace through faith. The body of Christ is sometimes termed the “invisible church” (or communion of all the faithful in Christ). However, a church is any congregation that is diligent to His word. Christ nor any Apostle even declared the church would be governed by a single earthly institution.
God is present when more than two people come together in His name – but He does not dwell in buildings.
We are the body of Christ, together we form His church. This is the plain language of Holy Scripture.
E
estesbob
Guest
I dont see any mention of an invisible Church in Scripture. in fact I dont even see any mention of such a concept for 1,500 years after Christ died.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Indeed there is also no mention of Irenaeus’ idea that the church should be governed by one institution or his view of apostolic succession. It’s exegesis.
The Papacy, the whole “one and only church” thing – all a Roman innovation.
When the Apostolic fathers were around (Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius) there was no central governing authority for the church. It was ran by local bishops. They certainly kept in communication with one another and agreed on core doctrine – however, the idea of apostolic succession as defined by the RCC and a central governing authority is a later innovation with no scriptural or apostolic support.
In fact there were even smaller churches that were not under the control of a local bishop. None of the Apostolic Fathers ever declared them invalid in any way because they did not join in the episcopal structure. It was a Roman power grab pure & simple. They were the Romans after all – power grabbing is what they did (and of course back in the day they were pretty good at it; indeed the best – but of course that’s all history).
In fact under Justinian they even dropped the pretenses – and the emperor himself held a ecumenical council (declaring poor Origen a heretic). I don’t know – seems dubious to me.
E
estesbob
Guest
Despite you slective quoting of Church Fathers sprinkled with you personal interpretation of whatb they said there is little dispute there was just one Church from day 1. You said the invisible Church is in Scripture-I cant find it. If there was one where did it hide for 1,500 years? Can you show us any documentaiton of this invisible Church?
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Yeah … I’ve heard it all before. No interest in arguing this point. I’m quite well informed & have an intimate knowledge of the truth. Solid protestants won’t be led astray by any of this. May as well discuss something we agree on rather than beat each other over the head. However, if you continue with this discussion I should say that you’ll be wasting your time. I’ve studied theology for many years & have discussed the concept of apostolic succession, Mariology, and other favorite topics of Catholics many times. I’ve studied law (hold a law degree), I’ve been to Iraq and back, and nothing – I mean nothing will ever lead me astray. The reformed faith is the single best explanation of the word of God out there.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Scripture calls faith “dead” unless it has works. It calls faith, even faith that can move mountains, “nothing” unless it has love. So one is joined in soul to the Church of Christ by “faith which worketh through love” (Gal 5:6).
It is not governed by an “institution,” but it is governed by ONE GUY, the chief pastor of the Church, Peter. Christ told Peter: “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32), “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” (Jn 21:15-17).
Nonetheless, the Lord appointed other ministers:
Lk 10:1, 16: "the Lord appointed seventy…’He that hears you:, hears me. He that rejects you, rejects me.'
This appointment were the priests (Gk presbyteros) and bishops (Gk episcopoi) of the Church. These men, in turn appointed other men to continue their ministry, instructing them to do the same.
To Timothy, Paul says, “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:2). This is explicit text which teaches the successorship of that ministry which the Lord appointed. This is apostolic succession.
Scripture states, “***Obey them that have RULE (Gk ***hegeomai) over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Heb 17:13).
The Greek word “hegeomai” is where the English word “hegemony” comes from, which means “authority over others.”
Furthermore, according to my Protestant Bible, the footnote to Matt 16:18 states that according to Matt 16:18, Peter was made the chiefapostle.
Protestant bible scholar F. F. Bruce, writes about Matt 18:16ff:
God selected a single man to be his voice, to be the Vicar of Christ. Thus, the NT Church had ONE GUY as the chief pastor, just as the Catholic Church continues today. This is the Scriptural ecclesiology established by God. Furthermore, Peter had “command authority” according to Scripture.
For example, Peter “commanded” Cornelius to be sacramentally baptized in the Book of Acts.
“He commanded (Gk*** Prostasso*****)** them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 10:48)
You might note that that word in Greek prostasso for “command” is only used 7 times in the NT, pertaining to the commands of the Lord, Angels of the Lord, Moses, and Peter. That Peter ALONE is among the list of those who could command is significant. It seems clear from this that Peter had special command authority within the Church, and exercised it.
In fact, this Divinely appointed “unity of command” is present throughout the history of salvation. For instance…
The marriage is the smallest unit established by God. It is led by ONE GUY, the husband. (Gen 3:16 - “your husband…shall rule over you.”) . The household, for example that of Noah, was led by ONE GUY, the patriarch Noah. (Gen 7:1). The tribe was led by ONE GUY, for example, the tribe of Abraham is led by Abraham.
The nation was led by ONE GUY. A OT example is that of the nation of Israel, led by the ONE GUY, Moses. It is interesting to note that when Korah attempted to rebel against this Divinely established hierarchy, asserting that everyone in the nation was holy and that they ought to be able to go to God withing having to use Moses as mediator, God disagreed. You can read more about his rebellion in Numbers ch. 16, a sin warned against in NT times in Jude 11.
The kingdom is led by ONE GUY, the King. An OT example is that of King David. Now, let’s take a closer look at this Davidic kingdom. The kindgom had many ministers. Yet, there was just ONE GUY, the one who held the keys of the kingdom who was the chief minister, given the authority to speak on behalf of the king, to be the ONE GUY to lead all the other ministers, the PRIME MINISTER.
Unity of command is presented as Scriptural in the governance of every unit, from those as small as the marriage to those as large as the kingdom, to even include the body of ministers for that kindgom, led by one guy, the chief minister.
We see this same Church hierarchy in the NT Church. Yet the only ones to affirm this Divinely established rule is the Catholic Church, who continues to be governed by ONE GUY, the historical successor of Peter as the chief pastor of the ONE CHURCH.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
unfortunately I have drill today – but I’ll address these points later.
E
estesbob
Guest
I take it that means you can not :
- Show us in Scripture where its says the Church is invisible
- Show us where anyone even had a concept of an “invisible” Church prior to the “reformation”
R
Reformed
Guest
I think Rome teaches the invisible concept in a way. Since the magestrium believes that not all who are members of the Catholic Church will enter Heaven, you have wheat and tares in the Catholic Church. The wheat is invisible to man, but known by God alone in 100% accuracy. Rome also teaches that they are not sure if those outside the Catholic Church will be saved or damned. Therefore, those who make it to Heaven who are not in communion with Rome are invisible to man and the Magestrium.
E
estesbob
Guest
BUT they do not teach that the Church is invisible. All Salvation is through the Church BUT one does not have to formally be a member of the Church.
R
Reformed
Guest
I don’t think they need to teach it, but it is clearly implied by what she teaches. Jesus teaches about the invislble church with the parable of wheat and tares, sheeps and goats, does He not?
E
estesbob
Guest
They neither teach it or imply it. The Church is quite visible and has been so for 2,000 years. You, unfortunately, are not a member.
- Status