Can't learn about salvation by reading scripture alone?

[jphilapy]

Fidelis:

It isn’t easier for everyone else and, as you can see, many people consider it a perjorative. Believe me, when you say “Catholic” in this forum, we know what you mean. And when you say “Orthodox” we also know what you mean. If anyone is confused by these terms, they deserve to be.

Thanks Fidelis, that will work for me! is Orth. and Cath. too offensive.
Of course I am not clear on why it is pejorative. For me it is no different than saying american or french, or saying car or van etc. What is it about the word that you find pejorative?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Great summary. Very well done theologically!! Thanks.

So your free to reject grace but not free to accept it.So in other words really not free at all?Either I am explaining my position wrong or reading wrong.I am no theologion,so correct my interperatation,while understanding that the gift of grace comes from God alone and nothing we desreve or can earn.God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

So your free to reject grace but not free to accept it.So in other words really not free at all?Either I am explaining my position wrong or reading wrong.I am no theologion,so correct my interperatation,while understanding that the gift of grace comes from God alone and nothing we desreve or can earn.God Bless

Lisa, I don’t even want to get into the issue of “free will” here. Frankly it seems to be a very misunderstood concept. It becomes very philosophical very quick. I believe, most basically, that we have free will, but that will is limited by ability. This is the Augustinian position of free will. In other words, we have freedom, but we don’t have liberty. What most people mean by free will is liberty, and I therefore do not ascribe to it.

But again, too big of an issue for this thread.

I was just saying that the theology produced by Shibboleth was well done in my opinion. I have not read the rest of his posts. I don’t even know whether he is Catholic or not.

Michael

 

[puzzleannie]

jphilapy:

I don’t know. I copied it off a website and he just said on page 52 of the Catechism for Adults.

I have both the “Catechism of the Catholic Church second edition”
Jeff

do you remember the name of the website? there is no point in rebutting or debating a statement like this unless we know the source and know it is definitive statement of Catholic teaching, in its entire context

 

[ianraygor]

When you say RC, you refer only to the Roman Rite and leave out the other Catholic rites of the Church: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, etc. These and others are fully part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and should not be ignored.

In answer to your main question, the more I read Scripture in conjunction with the Magisterium, the more I understand the limitations of reading Scripture without an authoritative interpreter. Non Catholics don’t agree with the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. We can quote all the verses that support the teachings of the Church, but people will continue to disagree because they either cannot or do not wish to see the truth of the matter because their “interpretation” does not agree.

YES, read Scripture because “Ignorance of Scripture is ignornace of Christ.” but to read it without the guidance of the Church which is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” is to leave one open to grievous if not mortal error.

These arguments can sometimes be quite fruitless, “for the kingdom of God consists not in spoken words but in power”

Only in the Catholic Church has God shown his power so clearly:

1. The Eucharistic miracles
2. The miracles accompanying the approved apparitions of Jesus and Mary.
3. The Incorruptibles

Only by reading Church history, the Church Fathers, encyclicals, Council documents, etc will you be able to see the depth and breadth of the mysteries that Christ has revealed to us.

I am currently in a Scripture study group reading the Gospel according to John. I’m using several commentaries: The Ignatius Study Bible, the Navarre commentaries, and the Catena Aurea. The Catena Aurea has been the most help to me. Reading the Apostolic and Church Fathers has lead me even deeper into the meaning of Scripture and given me even more reason to know with even more assurance that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church of the Holy and Blessed Trinity.

 

[jphilapy]

ianraygor:

When you say RC, you refer only to the Roman Rite and leave out the other Catholic rites of the Church: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, etc. These and others are fully part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and should not be ignored.

Can you tell me what the difference is between these rites? Why so many? Or can you refer me to material (books/websites) that can give me more information regarding the differences?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

Can you tell me what the difference is between these rites? Why so many? Or can you refer me to material (books/websites) that can give me more information regarding the differences?

Jeff

Here’s a good place to start: newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ianraygor:

Only in the Catholic Church has God shown his power so clearly:

1. The Eucharistic miracles
2. The miracles accompanying the approved apparitions of Jesus and Mary.
3. The Incorruptibles

That last one, sounds like a detective series ​

Talking of miracles - how many Catholics have seen a man raised from the dead ? It is said to have happened among Protestants in recent times.

A possible rebuttal: “Yes, but even Antichrist will work “lying wonders” - so Protestant miracles don’t count”

That is the problem with miracles - they are good for proving one’s own religion, and equally good as a warning sign that it is anything but true. They are very ambiguous in their meaning.

Don’t Eucharistic miracles contradict the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is a sacramental sign ?

And besides; the Mass is not, strictly speaking, miraculous at all. Because the Eucharistic conversion is not perceptible by the senses: and this is one of the features of a miracle. St. Thomas discusses this somwhere in the Summa Theologiae, part 3. ##

 

[jphilapy]

## That last one, sounds like a detective series

Talking of miracles - how many Catholics have seen a man raised from the dead ? It is said to have happened among Protestants in recent times.

A possible rebuttal: “Yes, but even Antichrist will work “lying wonders” - so Protestant miracles don’t count”

Don’t Eucharistic miracles contradict the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is a sacramental sign ?

And besides; the Mass is not, strictly speaking, miraculous at all. Because the Eucharistic conversion is not perceptible by the senses: and this is one of the features of a miracle. St. Thomas discusses this somwhere in the Summa Theologiae, part 3. ##

Gottle, your post is a nice eye opener and is clever

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

How can the Emperor Nero/Domitian work miracles?

 

[ianraygor]

## That last one, sounds like a detective series

Talking of miracles - how many Catholics have seen a man raised from the dead ? It is said to have happened among Protestants in recent times.

A possible rebuttal: “Yes, but even Antichrist will work “lying wonders” - so Protestant miracles don’t count”

That is the problem with miracles - they are good for proving one’s own religion, and equally good as a warning sign that it is anything but true. They are very ambiguous in their meaning.

Don’t Eucharistic miracles contradict the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is a sacramental sign ?

And besides; the Mass is not, strictly speaking, miraculous at all. Because the Eucharistic conversion is not perceptible by the senses: and this is one of the features of a miracle. St. Thomas discusses this somwhere in the Summa Theologiae, part 3. ##

I speak, of course, to those miracles which the Church has approved.

As far as there being “miracles” which other religions claim, I am not aware of anything but hearsay. The one’s approved by the Church are recognized by legitimate scientific process as well.

Concerning those “miracles” which are of Satan…yes…we must be careful of deception. For instance, the seer that followed Paul and his companions preached, “here are men that teach A way of salvation.” Not **THE **way but **A **way. A slight distinction that others may not recognize but is very important.

I don’t know all of the criteria for a valid miracle, however, a few points I am fairly sure of are:

1. It can not be a “new” or different revelation from the deposit of faith, for all was revealed by Christ to the Apostles, which was in turn passed on via word of mouth and letter and was preserved by the Apostolic and other Church Fathers, and there can be no different revelation after the death of the last apostle, John.
2. It must always aid in the deepening of our faith and must not point to anyone but Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
3. The miracles must be verified by science and the Church, and inexplicable by normal means. The Church scrutinizes each “miracle” intensly to ensure validity.

I believe these are the main points and can help us determine the validity of a miracle.

 

[Shibboleth]

ianraygor:

I speak, of course, to those miracles which the Church has approved.

As far as there being “miracles” which other religions claim, I am not aware of anything but hearsay. The one’s approved by the Church are recognized by legitimate scientific process as well.

Concerning those “miracles” which are of Satan…yes…we must be careful of deception. For instance, the seer that followed Paul and his companions preached, “here are men that teach A way of salvation.” Not **THE **way but **A **way. A slight distinction that others may not recognize but is very important.

I don’t know all of the criteria for a valid miracle, however, a few points I am fairly sure of are:

1. It can not be a “new” or different revelation from the deposit of faith, for all was revealed by Christ to the Apostles, which was in turn passed on via word of mouth and letter and was preserved by the Apostolic and other Church Fathers, and there can be no different revelation after the death of the last apostle, John.
2. It must always aid in the deepening of our faith and must not point to anyone but Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
3. The miracles must be verified by science and the Church, and inexplicable by normal means. The Church scrutinizes each “miracle” intensly to ensure validity.

I believe these are the main points and can help us determine the validity of a miracle.

I hope you realize the logic error in using this to support your claim that this is proof that Catholicism is the one Church and all others are not.

 

[ianraygor]

##
Don’t Eucharistic miracles contradict the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is a sacramental sign ?

Where is the contradiction? A Sacrament is a mystery…I think that qualifies. The accidents of the species remain so that our weak, human senses are not overwhelmed by what we are receiving. The Blessed Sacrament IS the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. By this miracle, Christ removes the accidents to make clear for us that the Eucharist is not merely a symbol, but a reality.

 

[ianraygor]

If this were the only proof, the argument might be lacking, but this is only one of many. And the logical problem is what?

 

[Shibboleth]

ianraygor:

If this were the only proof, the argument might be lacking, but this is only one of many. And the logical problem is what?

The logical problem with what you presented is this.

“You do not have any Eucharistic miracles therefore you must not be as close to Jesus as the Catholic Church.”

To this I would respond that the Lutheran Church has indeed had many Eucharistic miracles.

You would respond,
“Not any that have been confirmed by the Catholic Church who has authority over such things, therefore they are not miracles.”

It comes down to you’re not because we say you’re not and we are because we say we are…

At least if you are using Eucharistic miracles as your only explanation.

The Catholic Church cannot assert that any Lutheran bread or wine has the possibility of containing a Eucharistic miracle because the Catholic Church professes that because Lutherans have a broken line of Apostolic Succession they do not have the power to actually infuse ← (not sure of the correct word) the host with the True Presence.

This is just a start of the tautology that you have presented.

 

[ianraygor]

I noticed that you are “converting” to Lutheranism, may I ask what from? It might help me to better understand where you are coming from.

As for your analysis, it lacks. My argument was not of tautology, but yours is. The witness is not the Church herself. The witnesses are Science and History. If you note, I said "by legitimate scientific process **AND **the Church. Thus, if the legitimate scientific community has confirmed it, they have also noted it and it becomes a part of history.

Looking at history, I see that Luther (Lutheranism), Knox (Presbyterianism), Henry VIII (The Church of England), etc, etc. are innovations that came after the 15th century and they are certainly not our Savoirs, in fact, they would probably not even recognize the “churches” they founded. For it is found in Scripture, “If any come after us teaching a Gospel different from ours, let them be anathema.” - First Century.

As far as Eucharistic miracles ocurring in the Lutheran Church, I am not aware of any, do you have any references?

So I ask again, where is the logical error?

 

[wisdom_3_5]

Ok, I didn’t read all the above posts, but I didn’t see these quotes as I was skimming through. . .

2Pet 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

2 Pet 3:15-17
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

The Catholic Church is here to guide and protect us. As much as I love bible study I don’t have the time (I live in the “world” I have to work, attend to my kids etc.)and bra(name removed by moderator)ower (compared to others such as Augustine & Aquinas) to study every subtle nuance every time an issue comes up. And when I’ve tried I’m amazed at how much I miss just trying to do it by myself! At times I am ignorant and unstable, its part of being a human being, but the church is clear and stable in her teaching.

 

[jphilapy]

ianraygor:

As for your analysis, it lacks. My argument was not of tautology, but yours is. The witness is not the Church herself. The witnesses are Science and History. If you note, I said "by legitimate scientific process **AND **the Church. Thus, if the legitimate scientific community has confirmed it, they have also noted it and it becomes a part of history.

Ok you confused me. What is the scientific process to confirm that the bread has infact become flesh?

Jeff

 

[ianraygor]

First, I’d like to point out something that I missed earlier. The start of this sub-thread was a response to Gottle of Geer’s comment about miracles, so that post probably seemed lacking. If you look at my earlier posts, you’ll see the other supports for the faith. I reacted too quickly with my response to your first post to me…sorry about that.

There is a site dedicted to the Eucharistic Miracles:

therealpresence.org/

Some will doubt the records here, but witnessing them first hand is difficult to refute. If you can’t travel to see them in person, you can inquire by letter, email, etc. at the local areas for confirmation.

I hope you find this useful.

 

[ianraygor]

wisdom 3:5:

Ok, I didn’t read all the above posts, but I didn’t see these quotes as I was skimming through. . .

2Pet 1:20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

2 Pet 3:15-17
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

The Catholic Church is here to guide and protect us. As much as I love bible study I don’t have the time (I live in the “world” I have to work, attend to my kids etc.)and bra(name removed by moderator)ower (compared to others such as Augustine & Aquinas) to study every subtle nuance every time an issue comes up. And when I’ve tried I’m amazed at how much I miss just trying to do it by myself! At times I am ignorant and unstable, its part of being a human being, but the church is clear and stable in her teaching.

I completely agree with you. However, I’ve found that arguing Scripture with most Protestants is at most times futile, we end up arguing interpretations. They claim that the Catholic Church is un-Scriptural. The more I read of Scripture, the Magisterium, History, and the Church Fathers, I find that this is not true. The fact is, they disagree with the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, not that the Church is un-Scriptural. They are so bound up in the fabricated doctrines that came after the 15th century (the two primary, of course, sola Scriptura/Fide), that they can’t or won’t see anything outside that.

I’ve just recently started talking to converts to try to understand how they overcame these hurdles, unfortunately I know very few at this time, but I am still looking.