By faith alone, a catholic misunderstanding

[guanophore]

I say when we take everything  I was referring to passages on Eucharist in john] you end up with the protestant position, I think debates help show that.

Which “Protestant position” is that?

The very reason catholic doctrine cannot be reformed is because they only accept what rome teaches, just as Jehovah witnesses. How do you know you are interpreting what the church is saying correctly?

I think you are confused, jj. The Church teaches what was given to her by the Apostles.

The JW do not accept what the Apostles taught.

and why not the bible?. Of course our authority is different, you intprit passages a way the church tells you to,

Why not the Bible? JJ, the Bible is a Catholic book. It was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith. Jesus opened the mind of His disciples to understand the Scriptures, and they taught this to the Church. The Church has the duty to preserve and to teach this (paradosis). We are not at liberty to accept “a different gospel” such as those that were innovated during the Reformation.

I dont see the church with that authority before posting typical catholic passages please watch debates on peter first pope etc] so that is why we must find what we agree on and work from there.

If you cannot see the authority of the Church in the scriptures, then there may be very little upon which we agree.

 

[jjsmity]

OK - - - For the sake of discussion - - - “Once saved, always saved” is true…

At what point is one guaranteed Salvation.
At what point can one know with absolute certainty that their faith is a living and saving faith and will never die (as demonstrated by a lack of works etc)?

At what point does one know for positive sure that they are good soil, and not stoney soil or soil full of brambles that will choke them out?

Now - let me be clear, I think that OSAS is quite true - or at least certain aspects of it. However, I think that we likely have a very different take on just when that guarantee kicks in.

Peace
James

I think we are closer than you may think, I agree with following catholic teachings.

163 *Faith makes us taste in advance the light of the beatific vision, the goal of our journey here below. Then we shall see God “face to face”, “as he is”.47So faith is already the beginning of eternal life:***When we contemplate the blessings of faith even now, as if gazing at a reflection in a mirror, it is as if we already possessed the wonderful things which our faith assures us we shall one day enjoy.

161** Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation *is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42"Since “without faith it is impossible to please (God) " and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”]

1992Justification **has beenmerited for us by the Passion of Christ*who offered himself on the cross as a living victim**, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and** the gift of eternal life**:

1996Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, thefree and undeserved help that God gives usto respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons,** partakers of the divine nature and of eternallife**

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48 (1966) Therefore if any one is in Christ,** he is a new creation;** the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

“CCC 1263 By Baptism **all sins are forgiven, **original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.”

Oh Catholics believe in Once Saved Always Saved too, we just realize the Apostles taught that our salvation is not completed until the end of this life. After we die, we are judged, and at that time, our disposition is completed.

Yes!

amen, welcome to come preach at our baptist church my friend.

 

[jjsmity]

I’ve watched and listened to countless hours of debates and always find the Protestant position lacking, ON EVERYTHING.

Your OSAS position is built on sand. You cannot get around the fact that IF the Corinthians, Galatians, Romans etc. are already saved, then St. Paul is wasting his time in writing to them to correct their errors. He should be out preaching the Gospel to more pagans.

You cannot get around Jesus’ teaching of the vine, where He implores us to remain in Him, lest we be cast into the fire. OSAS would respond: “no worries Jesus, I’m saved already.”

You cannot get around these verses:
41Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.nTemptations to Sin.42o*“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
IF OSAS is true, then you have to say to Jesus: Ah Jesus, that person who refused to give water made an altar call, and we told him he is saved, so you CAN’T take away his reward.
If OSAS is true then what does it matter if you cause one of His little ones to sin? Since they believe in Him aren’t they saved?

Sheep in Jesus’ parables are the believers. Notice in the parable of the Lost Sheep Jesus says, IF that sheep is found, there will be much rejoicing. On the other hand, that sheep that once believed may be lost forever.

The reason that Catholic doctrines do not need reform is that they are TRUE. Why reform truth?

Authority? If you don’t recognize the Church’s authority, then whose would you recognize? In the end, with Protestantism, you can reject everyone’s authority, because what right has any of them to tell you what to do, if you disagree with them? NONE of them can claim they have the authority that Christ gave the Apostles. So in the end EVERY Protestant is their own authority. That is sad, and a terrible weight to carry.

How do I know if I am interpreting what the Church is teaching correctly? Did you really post that? You are the first I have ever heard say that. Most people say that the Church is too clear on everything. They wish the Church would, now what word am I looking for. I know someone posted it before? I KNOW. They wish the Church would DILUTE Christ’s message.

From another website on Bible interpretation:
Therefore, when a Protestant says : " I stand by the Bible alone," he does not mean that he stands by the Bible uninterpreted, for in such case the Bible is mute. He does not mean that he stands by the Bible as interpreted by the Church, for that would not be the Protestant but the Catholic principle. Nor does he mean that he stands by the Bible as interpreted by somebody else ; as that would be, according to his notion, to give up his right of private interpretation. But he means that he stands by the Bible alone as interpreted by himself, and that the sense in which he himself understands it is the Word of God. And therefore a person who is guided by this principle comes to say this :" The Bible, interpreted by the fathers, may or may not be the Word of God ; the Bible interpreted by the Church may or may not be the Word of God ; the Bible interpreted by any one besides myself mayor may not be the Word of God ; but the Bible interpreted by me, that is indeed the Word of God, my only teacher, my guide, my infallible authority.“To a Catholic who would rejoin : " What, my friend, if you were to understand some passage of Scripture in a wrong sense ?” The person who would still stick to that principle would have to reply : " That would be a great pity, but still, not acknowledging any other authority but myown private judgment, I have a right to look upon that interpretation mine as the Word of God."*And if a Catholic were to add : " Is it not reasonable to suppose the interpretation of the Bible by the whole body of bishops of the Catholic Church, though disagreeing with your private interpretation, should be the right one, and therefore more likely the word of God " the Protestant would be reduced to answer: " I do not agree, because that interpretation would not be mine" If you argue so," the Catholic may justly reply, " I must say that with you, my friend, the me and the mine stand for all arguments."*Let him who has eyes see what spirit is at the root of this boastful saying, and how shallow is the principle of standing by the Bible alone.*The Bible in the original language, or when truthfully translated, indeed in itself the Word of God, and infallible ; but the Bible is not the Word of God, nor infallible, with regard to us, unless rightly interpreted, that is, interpreted with authority, certainty, and infallibility. For if the interpretation be wrong, the Bible ceases to be, with regard to the reader the Word of God ; and if the interpretation be unauthorized, doubtful fallible, the Bible becomes, with regard to 'the reader, unbinding, doubtful, fallible.

Thanks for post there is allot there. What I will ask is if you have some stuff of being on topic i will gladly respond, you pick up good topic to disuse when the time comes but even osas is off topic. What i will say is you have more than few misunderstanding of osas and my position on subject, that runs maybe in line fully with catholic teachings [read above post with ccc references]. I do find it hard to believe you have watched many debates or you would have your answered and misunderstanding already responded to. If you could please respond to on topic stuff i will glade discus, thanks.

 

[jjsmity]

Hello Duane.

Nice post. Good points. I’ve always wondered how persons who are Bible believing in that their salvation comes from reading and interpreting the Bible alone for themselves can reconcile the historical facts about the actual book of the Bible with what they believe. I mean how did Jesus save anyone prior to its writing? That the first 325 years after Ascended into Heaven. The Bible took that long to be written and settled on. So no book to save folks with yet = no one saved after His Ascension. Okay. He couldn’t if it was the ONLY means of obtaining salvation. Instead of teaching and preaching and working miracles, He should’ve sat all His disciples down and given dictation instead. He would have said “Write this in remembrance of me” rather than “Do this in remembrance of me.” And not only that, but if the Bible is the only way to be saved, then until the printing press made it available, no one was saved except those few who either copied it for others or were rich enough to own a copy. That’s another 1200 years later, as in 325 plus 1200 gives you the 1500 it took to mass produce the Bible and it really wasn’t mass produced till about another hundred years latter. Okay. God still was very limited in who He could reach cause they had no book to read! And that means that God was not capable of saving most everyone in history since He came. Pretty far fetched and doesn’t say much about God’s ability to save folks. He needed a book to do it? Yeah right. Not much of a god at all. No thanks. I prefer believing something else. The Word is alive, and a Person, Jesus Christ and He is living in me and available for me in the Sacraments. Yeah. I believe. Amen brother.

Glenda

just wanted to say I agree with you as well 100% here, I know this wasn’t at me but had to make sure it was not aimed at protestants, I agree with your above post 100%.x Many a misunderstanding around here I fear and in protestant churches, just the reason I am here.

I think that one of the problems that come in on these kinds of discussions is that people on both sides tend to look at it in a forensic manner instead of charactological manner.
By this I mean we tend to talk about what we have (faith. works, grace, etc) instead of what we ARE (disciples of Christ, children of God, etc) .

We are not saved by what we “have” but by what we ARE…What we have, and what we do is based on what we are, and what we are shows in what we do.

Baptism is not just about being washed with water, either by pouring or immersion…It is about being immersed in the Will of God. It is about a complete overhaul - through repentance - of our lives,our focus, our very being. This is what is meant when Jesus speaks of being reborn.

Faith is in many ways the core of this. Without faith - that is a fully trusting commitment - how can we ever hope to be reborn or to grow in holiness? Yet faith by itself is be insufficient if it lacks love. Paul tells us this in no uncertain terms. Works then are the outpouring of this properly ordered love and faith…this repentance and rebirth.
We can rightly say that works are not a requirement since we have the thief on the cross as an example…yet there must be the desire and the intent to do the will of God (meaning good works) or else it is obvious that the faith we claim is dead.

So - We put off the old and put on the new. By grace we become a new creature. Not just “saved by (having) faith” but saved by BEING faith personified.

Now - God grant me the grace to live up to that which I have just written,

Peace
James

amen great post.

 

[jjsmity]

I have been in many discussions with protestants on these matters and have come to this conclusion…
So long as Scripture provides passages that provide evidence for both arguments, one must go with the more scripturally inclusive option.
In this case (OSAS) since Scripture provides both passages giving great assurance that salvation cannot be lost AND passages saying that it can…one needs to go with the view that one cannot be dead certain of salvation on this side of the veil.

Does this mean that we cannot have great assurance? Of course not. If fact we should take great comfort and joy in that assurance. We just need to avoid taking God’s gift for granted…or thinking that we are somehow done reforming our lives.
We need to always remember the stoney and the thorny ground…lest we die out and bear no fruit.

Peace
James

I am liking you more all the time great post.

Thanks. Can’t say I saw your replies as particularly uncharitable.

I think that for many of us, when we manage to have a good and serious conversation with somebody on these matters we tend to find ourselves not so far apart spiritually. It seems that we are kind of like the old saying (Oscar Wilde??): England and America are two countries divided by a common language. ** It just seems like many times Catholics and non-Catholics can be using the same words but hearing different meanings**…

Peace
James

so very true, I am encountering this as well.

In the first 1,500 years of Christianity, one can not find an symbolic belief of the Lord’s Supper. Catholic East, Catholic West and Orthodox all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The apostolic faith - that which Christ taught - can also be read in the Early Church Father’s including St. Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Marytr:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

No reformation needed. The “Catholic Church” has no authority to change was Christ has established and taught. Believing in a symbolic Lord’s Supper is a significant break from teaching of Christ and the apostles.

Let’s continue reading what the early Church believed. No where do we find The Church believing in a symbolic Lord’s Supper. No where: not in Spain, not in Africa, not in Greece, not in Macedonia, not in Asia, not in the Middle East.

Do we agree on this point above or do you have evidence in a early Church belief in a symbolic Lord’s Supper?

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

PnP

Not a thread on that subject, i would recommend debates you may find popes and catholic historians disagree with your statement, because you will. You also showed unawares just the reason the church cannot be reformed and is in a circle stuck with both good and bad teachings.

 

[jjsmity]

Just to be clear. I didn’t think I was running down your faith… I thought that you may think that I was ‘attempting’ to do so, when the opposite is true.

I can’t imagine how. I think that there are some very clever people who can argue that black is white… but wearing the opposition down wouldn’t make that statement true.

As Duane says… ‘The reason that Catholic doctrines do not need reform is that they are TRUE. Why reform truth?’

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Catholic.

If you don’t wish me to post typical Catholic passages, I’m going to have a difficult time answering this… it is clearly written in the Scripture though, and if everybody were to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, we’d end up with multiple thousands… if not millions, of different perspectives.

I was wondering about whether you have read anything by the Early Church Fathers and whether you would be interested in doing so? I haven’t purposely read anything they have written, though to be fair I have seen the occasional quote. I figured you might be interested in us doing this because these were the people who were taught directly by the Apostles and it would give us a clearer understanding of what Jesus teaches us through the Apostles… it would also put us on a level playing field because the Church was united back in those times… so you and I, and the other posters, would be on the same side and in agreement. In the Gospel of John, it says that everything that Jesus did isn’t in the Bible so some aspects of Our Lord’s teaching may materialize there. Are you interested? And, hopefully others who are reading and responding to these posts will be interested too… we can perhaps all learn something together.

sorry not much time must stay on topic.

I think you missed the point of catholic reform and jw’s but since off topic I will leave it as well as body and blood of jesus.

early chuch

I have indeed read some church history books and will be getting ludwig otts book for xmas. Thanks.

Which “Protestant position” is that?

I think you are confused, jj. The Church teaches what was given to her by the Apostles.

The JW do not accept what the Apostles taught.

Why not the Bible? JJ, the Bible is a Catholic book. It was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith. Jesus opened the mind of His disciples to understand the Scriptures, and they taught this to the Church. The Church has the duty to preserve and to teach this (paradosis). We are not at liberty to accept “a different gospel” such as those that were innovated during the Reformation.

If you cannot see the authority of the Church in the scriptures, then there may be very little upon which we agree.

must stay on topic loss of time

watch a debate. non literal eating jesus but symbolism.

jw i agree missed point but off topic.

amen.

I agree somewhat, that is were the separation start because all catholic teachings depends on that.

 

[sudy]

Hi jj,

I know this is not strictly on topic but you did briefly mention the Church authority, so I have a couple of points/questions I’d like to address… let’s just call it food for thought. Feel free to comment if you like.

Considering that Paul did most of the evangelizing to the Gentiles in the Bible, why did Jesus specifically appoint Peter to feed His sheep?
see John 21: 15-17

What purpose did it serve Jesus to specifically give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter?
see Matthew 16: 17-19, not to be confused with John 20: 21-23 which refers specifically to sins and is addressing all of the disciples… and is also after the resurrection.

Why did Peter specifically declare at the Council of Jerusalem that God had made a choice among us, that Peter should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers?
see Acts 15: 6-7

And… if the succession of Peter was not important, why did the Apostles bother to appoint Linus? (not sure where to reference this… but they did appoint a successor… and I’m wondering why you suppose that was).

Thank you in advance.

 

[JRKH]

I think we are closer than you may think, I agree with following catholic teachings.

Wonderful…but this does not answer the question I asked in my post…I would appreciate a direct answer.

Peace
James

 

[sudy]

non literal eating jesus but symbolism.

Sorry for the delay about this but I only just noticed what you wrote here. If you look at a crucifix… Jesus on the front is a symbol that helps us to bring to mind how He suffered and died for our sakes, amongst other things. This symbol is not the physical Jesus, it remains a symbol.

The Eucharist, on the other hand, is not a symbol but the actual physical presence of Jesus… His body, His blood, His soul and His divinity, though it remains in appearance of bread and wine. Please see what Jesus actually said to us and how much it matters. He didn’t say, ‘This is a representation of My body’… No, he said ‘this IS My body.’ ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.’

A mere symbol cannot effect eternal life. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

 

[JonNC]

watch a debate. non literal eating jesus but symbolism.

Not the original protestant view, was it? That is, if Luther is considered the “original protestant”.

Jon

 

[jjsmity]

Hi jj,

I know this is not strictly on topic but you did briefly mention the Church authority, so I have a couple of points/questions I’d like to address… let’s just call it food for thought. Feel free to comment if you like.

Considering that Paul did most of the evangelizing to the Gentiles in the Bible, why did Jesus specifically appoint Peter to feed His sheep?
see John 21: 15-17

What purpose did it serve Jesus to specifically give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter?
see Matthew 16: 17-19, not to be confused with John 20: 21-23 which refers specifically to sins and is addressing all of the disciples… and is also after the resurrection.

Why did Peter specifically declare at the Council of Jerusalem that God had made a choice among us, that Peter should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers?
see Acts 15: 6-7

And… if the succession of Peter was not important, why did the Apostles bother to appoint Linus? (not sure where to reference this… but they did appoint a successor… and I’m wondering why you suppose that was).

Thank you in advance.

since you asked so nice and i like you soooooo.

first off i am not here to debate prove my point or convince as I think as long as the church is a Catholics authority, than nothing else anyone can do can convince at all, that is a good thing if Catholics are correct, if not that can be very bad and many do see it that way. I am here to better understand and bring the two together. thoe so many want to debate i do feel i may make certain threads on certain subjects the book of james being one.

john 21
So I will just give quick answer not arguments just why we belive as we do. I would say he asked all them to feed his sheep. We actually see paul as the apostle of the gentiles and peter to the jews Galatians 2.7. So if anyone we believe it should be paul not peter in rome.

matt 16
we would say that the church is built v 16 peter’s declaration as jesus messiah and son of god, that is the rock jesus. Rock = abraham descendants spiritually look to Isiah 51 1-2.
in matt 18.18 the authority is given to all disciples not just peter. peter was simply first to openly declare so. In acts 15 james not peter is the leader.

Acts 15

this was very early in history, please read Galatians 2 7-9. peter sees paul is sent to gentiles and him john,james to jews.

successor
They named successors to all did they not? to non disciples who lead churches as well. Looking for good godly preachers and teachers. If you read the nt even the very early churches could quickly fall into false doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

You also showed unawares just the reason the church cannot be reformed and is in a circle stuck with both good and bad teachings.

Can you explain this?

I think you missed the point of catholic reform.

You are right. We cannot give up what was committed to the Church by the Apostles.

Faith is never alone, it is always accompanied by hope and love. Saving faith is also faith that works, the same grace that produces saving faith produces works that befit repentance, so it is always accompanied by the fruit that bears witness to it’s presence.

early chuch

The early church believed that the faith was deposited once for all to the saints, and that it is the duty of the faithful to cling to the Sacred Traditions that were passed by the Apostles.

non literal eating jesus but symbolism.

Did the Jews literally eat a lamb at Passover? Was the lamb also not a symbol of their deliverance from Egypt?

Jesus gave his real Body and Blood on the cross for us to remember, not symbolic flesh and blood.

I agree somewhat, that is were the separation start because all catholic teachings depends on that.

Catholic teaching depends upon what was handed down to us from the Apostles. We are not at liberty to add or subtract from any of it.

 

[Duane1966]

sorry not much time must stay on topic.

I think you missed the point of catholic reform and jw’s but since off topic I will leave it as well as body and blood of jesus.

early chuch

I have indeed read some church history books and will be getting ludwig otts book for xmas. Thanks.

must stay on topic loss of time

watch a debate. non literal eating jesus but symbolism.

jw i agree missed point but off topic.

amen.

I agree somewhat, that is were the separation start because all catholic teachings depends on that.

I posted to what you stated, now you say off topic. You cannot, nor can any like minded Protestant get around this point on the Eucharist. In the Greek, the word John uses for eat My flesh, is trogo. This word means to gnaw physical food, NOT spiritual food. This is a quote from a PROTESTANT website: trogo is NEVER used metaphorically. The Jews knew exactly what Jesus was saying and they knew it was not symbolic. That is why they walked away. And Jesus let them walk away. He didn’t say come back, you don’t understand me.

I have watched debates on Youtube since YouTube has been around. I stand by my statement that I find Protestant positions weak.

 

[guanophore]

I posted to what you stated, now you say off topic. You cannot, nor can any like minded Protestant get around this point on the Eucharist. In the Greek, the word John uses for eat My flesh, is trogo. This word means to gnaw physical food, NOT spiritual food. This is a quote from a PROTESTANT website: trogo is NEVER used metaphorically. The Jews knew exactly what Jesus was saying and they knew it was not symbolic. That is why they walked away. And Jesus let them walk away. He didn’t say come back, you don’t understand me.

I have read that it was used metaphorically to describe calumny and verbal degradation. Even if one approaches the passage with that use of trogo then Jesus would be saying “unless you verbally disparage me, you will not have life in you”, which doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[Bayou_Catholic]

I say the misunderstanding is on you.

This may be true. I do not claim to know what other faith traditions teach. I’m open to hear what you have to say. There are already several folks in dialogue with you. I won’t add to that. But, I will re-read this thread and continue to follow along. My wife is Baptist (tho discerning entering the Church); and her family is very much Baptist. So I have a particular interest in your thoughts on this subject. Especially, since your are working to bridge the gap. Thanks for taking the time to dialogue with us here at CAF. I will remember you in my prayers.

 

[JRKH]

matt 16
we would say that the church is built v 16 peter’s declaration as jesus messiah and son of god, that is the rock jesus. Rock = abraham descendants spiritually look to Isiah 51 1-2.
in matt 18.18 the authority is given to all disciples not just peter. peter was simply first to openly declare so. In acts 15 james not peter is the leader.

Acts 15

this was very early in history, please read Galatians 2 7-9. peter sees paul is sent to gentiles and him john,james to jews.

successor
They named successors to all did they not? to non disciples who lead churches as well. Looking for good godly preachers and teachers. If you read the nt even the very early churches could quickly fall into false doctrine.

Just a quick comment here. I like many of your answers but within them (if one knows where to look) we see the underlying protestant error.
You say that in Mt 18 the authority is granted to all of the disciples - yet - it is given to them as a Church a singular community working together…
Not as the protestant view wishes it to be - where each has authority independently of the other and answerable only to Jesus.
The Church view is demonstrated in Acts 15 where a dispute between two factions within the community is permanently and authoritatively settled by a council of Church leaders.

Apostolic succession and leadership and visible structure and authority are all a part of the singular nature of the body of Christ. It does not detract from our all having the authority of Mt 18…but it does preclude us from attempting to exercise that authority outside of the deposit of faith that is part of the whole body of Christ.

This is why I am such a stickler on this one point. Forget for the moment coming home to the Catholic Church…
If the protestants wish to truly follow the bible, then they need to ditch this false dogma private interpretation, of many (and conflicting) teachings and communities, and start to come together in councils to resolve these matters. So that they may once again be “one Church”.

Sorry if this sounds pushy - I don’t intend it to be…just sharing my understanding of things…

Peace
James

 

[sudy]

2 Peter 1: 20-21 At the same time, we must recognise that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came from human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.

Matthew 18: 3 Then He said, ‘In truth I tell you, unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven.’

 

[Porknpie]

i would recommend debates you may

That’s a pretty big word in this sentence, in need of some type of proof: may. And I have watched my share of debates and there is no credence to the position of a symbolic Eucharist.

This may be helpful to you being Baptist. Here’s a video link to a former Baptist preacher explaining how he came to understand the truth about the Eucharist. His name is Steven Ray.

find popes

May find Popes? Please name one and provide the reference.

and catholic historians disagree with your statement.

Please name one and provide the reference.

You also showed unawares just the reason the church cannot be reformed and is in a circle stuck with both good and bad teachings.

Nah. What’s happened is that you are following someone who followed someone, who followed someone, who…etc departed from what Christ taught the apostles.

JJ, in my earlier post, I simply did not say that the early Church “may” have written about the Real Presence, I provided actual quotes that you can read and the references to the documents themselves that you can go back to and read yourself. There is no “may” on what the early Church believed. Wherever the apostles & disciples went, preaching the Gospel, they taught the Real Presence.

To tie the point above to the thread, in the same way some protestants take the bible and come up with a “faith alone” theology - that never existed for 1,500 years of Christianity, the same thing has happened with the Real Presence.

Interesting it is on faith alone, that the only time in the bible that the two words are used together, it says “we are not saved by faith alone” (James 2:24). But neither do Catholics believe we can work our way to salvation. It’s simply not either, or but as Guan said, faith working through love.

PnP

 

[JRKH]

I noticed in yesterday and today’s 1st readings are from Revelation and noted the following that fits in with our conversation here.
In speaking to the various churches - John relays this line to 5 of the seven…“I know your works” (RSV).
So - Works are not necessary??? (except of course in extreme situations such as hanging on a cross…)
Revelations seems to say otherwise…

Peace
James

 

[jjsmity]

This may be true. I do not claim to know what other faith traditions teach. I’m open to hear what you have to say. There are already several folks in dialogue with you. I won’t add to that. But, I will re-read this thread and continue to follow along. My wife is Baptist (tho discerning entering the Church); and her family is very much Baptist. So I have a particular interest in your thoughts on this subject. Especially, since your are working to bridge the gap. Thanks for taking the time to dialogue with us here at CAF. I will remember you in my prayers.

Great to hear i hope we stay in touch, i will be on these threads in future on other subjects i would love for you to post. Just said a prayer for you, thanks and god bless.

Just a quick comment here. I like many of your answers but within them (if one knows where to look) we see the underlying protestant error.
You say that in Mt 18 the authority is granted to all of the disciples - yet - it is given to them as a Church a singular community working together…
Not as the protestant view wishes it to be - where each has authority independently of the other and answerable only to Jesus.
The Church view is demonstrated in Acts 15 where a dispute between two factions within the community is permanently and authoritatively settled by a council of Church leaders.

Apostolic succession and leadership and visible structure and authority are all a part of the singular nature of the body of Christ. It does not detract from our all having the authority of Mt 18…but it does preclude us from attempting to exercise that authority outside of the deposit of faith that is part of the whole body of Christ.

This is why I am such a stickler on this one point. Forget for the moment coming home to the Catholic Church…
If the protestants wish to truly follow the bible, then they need to ditch this false dogma private interpretation, of many (and conflicting) teachings and communities, and start to come together in councils to resolve these matters. So that they may once again be “one Church”.

Sorry if this sounds pushy - I don’t intend it to be…just sharing my understanding of things…

Peace
James

I love your posts and thanks, to avoid even more off topic I must not reply I hope you understand, I love your post and honest discussions I will be on forum for long time so I am sure we will be able to have great discussions. Perhaps the time will come for this subject.

I noticed in yesterday and today’s 1st readings are from Revelation and noted the following that fits in with our conversation here.
In speaking to the various churches - John relays this line to 5 of the seven…“I know your works” (RSV).
So - Works are not necessary??? (except of course in extreme situations such as hanging on a cross…)
Revelations seems to say otherwise…

Peace
James

since this is on topic somewhat i shall respond. If you read my op it says works are proof they are what shows, the fruit of belief/faith. Not saved by works, but they are the proof, like Hebrews 11 there works showed their faith, paul says by faith, yet he is just mentioning their works. No protestant denies works as “part” of sanctification, just not what saves, that’s all jesus.