H
hope
Guest
There are two traditions oral and written. You say that it contradict but you have yet to explain how it contradicts.
Last edited:
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
6 translations, including Douay-Rheims have perfect. 20 say thorough/completely furnished, leaving no room for insuficiency in many circles of understanding .
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
The contradiction only comes when one says the Scripture is insufficient, or that the oral is not restrained by Scripture. Oral tradition is conditional upon it being scriptural for us today.
Pretty sure I have shown that no conditions are put upon complete equipping thru Scriptural teaching. To say you also need oral, unwritten teaching unconditionally ( not explicit or implicit in bible) contradicts said text.
M
mcq72
Guest
It’s late but quickly…this was written while Scripture was being formulated or still being written. One can not deduce the insufficiency of scriptire from this or any unconditional equality of future oral teachings, unhteathered from scripture.
Once apostles wrote their last, here is what Barnabus says,
" Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written"
This does negate any foundation and use of oral teaching, but places obvious condition that it must concur with the written.
I would also think that use of the OT scripture was sufficient foundation to justify any good work or preaching done by Jesus and apostles. Any Jewish oral teaching was not as sure footed, and was conditional on their alignment with proper scriptural understanding.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
First I said you misunderstood the meaning of the use of the word perfect. There are some translations that use it and some don’t.
2 Timothy Chapter 3
17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work
This translation conveys clearer what is meant.
H
hope
Guest
It is because you are adding more to the text than is there.
Yes the inspiration of Scripture comes from God
Yes scripture teaches us. We can use it to refute as I am now. We can use it to correct wrong teachings and for discipline in being morally right.
Those who are children of God.
qualified knowing and able to perform.
No one says that it is insufficient only that this scripture is improperly used to try vainly to prove that everything is in scripture. It doesn’t remotely suggest that meaning. Oral tradition is equal to the written.
M
Montrose
Guest
You are the one who has been caught out. You asked for a source like the Catechism. Although the Baltimore is a local Catechism (it’s easier to follow in Q&A format) there can be no teachings in any local Catechism that contradict teachings in the CCC.
You simply don’t like that you are shown to be wrong.
Incidentally the Baltimore Catechism, which was the most well known one prior to the CCC coming out, was based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent or will you also argue that catechism is no good.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
The problem with Horten is that he only wants to see the words “it’s a mortal sin” otherwise he doesn’t believe what an “obligation” means.
H
hope
Guest
Where does this quote come from. A search produced nothing.
H
hope
Guest
I agree with your assessment but the question he asked was not to prove that there was an obligation but
He is under the illusion
He feels that they are unable to meet the obligation. He ignored my post
He wants you to show that there is mortal sin if because of their mortal sin they cannot go to confession because they don’t intend to repent. That reasoning is false. As you rightly point out, the obligation is to confess. The obligation is not mute because you don’t wish to stop sinning.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
So I am a bit confused. What does a priest tell you when you confess (to fulfill the obligation ) that you are living in mortal sin and have no desire to repent?
By the way, I am 99% certain @Horton is a female.
By the way, I am 99% certain @Horton is a female.
M
Montrose
Guest
The priest will not give absolution.
W
Wannano
Guest
So am I to understand that Catholics have an obligation to go to confession at least once a year even when they are not repentant?
If the answer is “yes” does this happen a lot?
If the answer is “yes” does this happen a lot?
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok…still says all scripture can be used, taught from, to make you proficient for any good work, (to walk out your faith, to have answer for it).
Again, from my take of the CC explanation, either equality of oral and scripture or the three legged stool, scripture as a rule is not enough for proficiency, which to me is contrary to our said text.
It is implied by three legged stool, and or when citing oral is equal to written.
Pretty sure have not explicitly said this and any implication you you have garnered is a misunderstanding of my posts.
Am well aware future biblical applications of scripture. Yet any new application or understanding can not be construed apart from writ. So again, like the Assumption, though having some biblical implication by some, still holds true to of equipping thru scripture.( though erronously in my opinion)
As soon as you need oral tradition that is not biblically founded to " make one proficient" you ursurp Paul’s assesment of scripture.
The key is “apart from scripture”. Oral teaching today if not derived from biblical texts is not equal to Scripture, and contradicts our said text. One can not be thoroughly equipped without Scripture. Not even the apostles.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
The once a year obligation is to receive Communion, not go to Confession. Of course, if you are in a state of mortal sin you have to go to Confession first. If you are in a state of grace you don’t need Confession.
Receiving Communion once a year during the Easter period is an obligation for all Catholics.
If a Catholic in a state of mortal sin won’t go to Confession and therefore must not receive Communion they commit a further mortal sin by not receiving during the easter period.
I would have no idea if it happens a lot. God knows, but not me.
M
mcq72
Guest
"CHAPTER 21
Final exhortation
1 It is good therefore that he who has learned the ordinances of the Lord as many as have been written should walk in them".
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lake.html
Not that dramatic…there are varied translations of his epistle.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
The ‘key’ would be ‘imperfect union’… why would one want that?
M
mcq72
Guest
Are you or I even in perfect union with all who are in our assembly/parish much less other churches/ communities ?
A
ArchStanton
Guest
I am in ‘perfect communion’ with Christ’s Church… you mentioned ‘offshoots’. The banquet has more to offer than the buffet.ArchStanton:
Are you or I even in perfect union with all who are in our assembly/parish much less other churches/ communities ?
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m coming into this a bit late, but…
so, what you’re looking for is a text that demonstrates that what we today call ‘The Catholic Church’ is indeed the Church founded by Jesus?
That’s an approach that’s kind of anachronistic, don’t you think? After all, the appellation “Roman Catholic” really only gained traction in the aftermath of the Reformation, when Europeans who wished to distinguish themselves from the Church in Rome wanted a name with which to do so. And, the appellation “Catholic Church” only gained traction as such, when the Eastern Churches wished to distinguish themselves from the Western Church, and therefore used the names “Orthodox” and “Catholic” to make this distinction.
So, the Church that Jesus founded – on the apostles, led by Petrine ministry – is the church in Rome that came to be known as “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic”. Looking for it by a particular name will not lead to answers. Looking for the Church which has the marks of the Catholic Church, however – ‘one, holy, catholic, apostolic’ – will lead you to recognize that what we call “Roman Catholic” today is what is described in the New Testament as the Church that Jesus founded.
Ya’ll aren’t suggesting that they’re literal keys, are you?Buzzard3:
Yes, another good point. Jesus didn’t just bless Peter; he gave him some keys, something for him to safeguard.
We see apostolic succession in the Book of Acts! Are you saying that Peter wasn’t an apostle, or just that it wasn’t believed that the See of Rome that was the See of Peter? That much you can certainly glean from the ECFs, who upheld the notion of Petrine authority from the beginning!
No, that wasn’t the meaning of the ‘keys’. The authority to forgive sins is found in John 20, and there’s no mention of the ‘keys’ in that context.
- Status