Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[mcq72]

In my previous post I bracketed [ Catholic/Orthodox ]. What other ‘ assembly ’ has the Eucharist ?

Well, none is quite like the Catholic. Again, no form of eucharist/ thanksgiving/ eating is deficient, in my opinion.

The number of pages from Trent has nothing to do with ‘ binding/loosing ’, and the ’ keys’ of authority guiding Christ’s Church.

Correct, but we were speaking of having or being in communion with fellow believers, communion of the saints, as members of His body.

Salvation is offered indeed… but again, why not accept Christ’s Church fully with the sacraments?

Because of folks being obedient to their convictions. To follow something you don’t believe in is even condemned or warned against by CC.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Pretty sure this and your last quote is aimed at peoples whom any Christian gospel has not reached.

There are other Catholic writings dealing with salvation of seperated brethren.

 

[mcq72]

Secondly the Church can be wrong &

Yes, but in teaching matters of faith and morals ? Otherwise, could you show me where the Catholic magisterium ever taught anything wrong on faith matters?

I understand that individual teachers can teach something wrong, and agree, that is not " the Church".

I mean Tradition in Catholic sense can not be wrong, just as scripture can not be in err.

Similar to what you mentioned earlier people would read the letters, say “yes this sounds like Paul.” & “yes, this supports the truths we were taught.”

Yes, understand the oral. Where we differ is that the CC fails to see or adapt to the scripture finally being completed. Another words they continue to act as before scripture was closed. They continue to act as if we were still in apostolic times with their authoritative oral teaching. You use justification, of they had no bible then (as if OT was what?), so therefore you will continue to justify same way even after we have bible. Wht set the record straight thru writing if it can still be bested?

 

[childinthefaith]

By the personal witness of His Apostles after His resurrection and ascension, many of whom’s writings are in the Biblical canon. The “deposit of faith” brought forth from that time through writings and oral teachings, has been carried through the bishops and popes since.

If you wish ot know more, I recommend reading the writings of the Church Fathers. You can find these free at newadvent.org. Start with Eusebius’ history I’d think for your question here.

 

[ArchStanton]

ArchStanton:

In my previous post I bracketed [ Catholic/Orthodox ]. What other ‘ assembly ’ has the Eucharist ?

Well, none is quite like the Catholic. Again, no form of eucharist/ thanksgiving/ eating is deficient, in my opinion.

You are willing to risk ‘your opinion’ on what Christ says?

Correct, but we were speaking of having or being in communion with fellow believers, communion of the saints, as members of His body.

1Jn 2:19

ArchStanton:

Salvation is offered indeed… but again, why not accept Christ’s Church fully with the sacraments?

Because of folks being obedient to their convictions. To follow something you don’t believe in is even condemned or warned against by CC.

So investigate from the backdoor

 

[Gorgias]

Because of folks being obedient to their convictions. To follow something you don’t believe in is even condemned or warned against by CC.

Agreed. Yet, it’s a double-edged sword, if you’re going to follow the Catholic Church: on one hand, you must follow your conscience. On the other hand, you must form your conscience properly. Following a poorly-formed conscience is neither sufficient nor safe.

Pretty sure this and your last quote is aimed at peoples whom any Christian gospel has not reached.

No. It would apply as well to those who have never accurately heard the Gospel as understood by the Catholic Church. So, if you were raised in a rabidly anti-Catholic Protestant household, then it’s no fault of your own that you do not know Christ’s Church (but rather, only your own denomination).

Where we differ is that the CC fails to see or adapt to the scripture finally being completed.

What adaptation is necessary? Where, in Scripture, do we see an “expiration date” on apostolic teaching or authority? If you can make that case, then you have a real assertion to work with!

 

[hope]

That is to say that her proclamations are always right because she can not be wrong. Only “others” can make “use” of the Word or tradition wrongly.

It is called infallibility and was promised by Jesus. Without the assurance that there is infallibility with the Church you would be lost in the wildness. We would never know who was right in the interpretations.

 

[mcq72]

You are willing to risk ‘your opinion’ on what Christ says?

Yes. No longer rest on other’s opinion, on what others say.

Jesus asks “Whom do you say that I am?”, amidst many other opinions. What we answer then is hopefully our testifying opinion. May we also hope that moreso from tradition and forefathers, even scripture, that it comes from the Father above.

1Jn 2:19

That so doesn’t fit, like 2nd Cor.6:17, or Rev. 8:14.

So investigate from the backdoor

Well yes, investigate, as the Spirit discerns all things.

But is it the backdoor when you have come out of her?

 

[mcq72]

It is called infallibility and was promised by Jesus.

No where is infallibility promised. In fact we are warned about losing our first love, becoming complacent, of letting leaven in, etc, etc…and you know, all the scriptures used against personal infallibilty (OSAS) are applicable to church.

What is perfect is His guidance. What is and always has been conditional, is our adherence and reception to it.

We would never know who was right in the interpretations.

This too is false, as if we didn’ t have His perfect guidance. That is like saying if we (CC) can’ t be right on a particular issue of faith, then no one else can in the body of Christ.

Without the assurance that there is infallibility with the Church you would be lost in the wildness

Assurance yes, but I believe infallibility is your addition.

 

[mcq72]

Following a poorly-formed conscience is neither sufficient nor safe.

A prejudiced conscience formed by tradition is also problematic.

So, if you were raised in a rabidly anti-Catholic Protestant household, then it’s no fault of your own that you do not know Christ’s Church (but rather, only your own denomination).

Again, this is found elsewhere in Catholic teaching, but not the understanding of what has been posted so far, being a different matter.

What adaptation is necessary?

That you now have written testimony from the now deceased apostles, setting their oral record straight.

Where, in Scripture, do we see an “expiration date” on apostolic teaching or authority?

What I meant by “apostolic times” is from Pentecost to the last days of John, when the apostles were still alive. The apostles expired. But not their teachimg, which is best recorded by their their writings, as God saw fit.

This is not to be confused with continuance of apostolic teaching, which is best when their scripture forms the rule. That kind of authority is bound in Heaven also

.

 

[hope]

No where is infallibility promised. In fact we are warned about losing our first love, becoming complacent, of letting leaven in, etc, etc…and you know, all the scriptures used against personal infallibilty (OSAS) are applicable to church.

What is perfect is His guidance. What is and always has been conditional, is our adherence and reception to it.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

This is Jesus’ giving the Church infallibility. Otherwise the gates of the netherworld would prevail. Of course after this the keys were given. Again without the charisma of infallibility they would be nothing.

You could not be sure of His guidance. You could be fooling yourself. There are many throughout history who have said that they have God’s guidance. Unless you are going to post links to your claims( In fact we are warned about losing our first love, becoming complacent, of letting leaven in, etc, etc…and you know, all the scriptures used against personal infallibilty (OSAS) are applicable to church.)
they are unfounded claims.

 

[Montrose]

No where is infallibility promised. In fact we are warned about losing our first love, becoming complacent, of letting leaven in, etc, etc…and you know, all the scriptures used against personal infallibilty (OSAS) are applicable to church.

How to Argue for Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers Magazine

Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers Tract

Infallibility | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

By the way, OSAS is not taught by the Catholic Church. Nobody knows in advance if they will be saved or not.
We can objectively say that anyone dying in a state of grace is saved (Purgatory first or straight to Heaven) but only God knows the state of a soul at death.

 

[Buzzard3]

What is perfect is His guidance

… except you have no way of knowing if you are being perfectly guided.
As a Catholic, I have the peace of knowing that my Church is perfectly guided by Christ - all I have to do is follow her.

This too is false, as if we didn’ t have His perfect guidance.

Do you have Christ’s perfect guidance? Do you have the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and are you the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15)?

Assurance yes, but I believe infallibility is your addition.

How can you possibly put your faith in the Bible if you can’t infallibly interpret it? If you can’t infallibly interpret the scriptures, they are useless.

 

[mcq72]

By the way, OSAS is not taught by the Catholic Church.

Thank you for your post and links.

Understand the CC and some other churches do not teach OSAS. I only cite it because some of their (OSAS) rationale or thought pattern is similar to CC teaching on their inerrancy. That is, you take all the positive texts towards that ( keys, prevailing against Hell, He is with us always, guiding etc.), and over riding or transferring to others/ individuals any conditional warnings texts, as OSAS seems to do.

So to me CC ends up having a version of OSAS but applying to CC magisterium, which I coin as ORAR, or “once right always right”.

 

[Montrose]

So to me CC ends up having a version of OSAS but applying to CC magisterium, which I coin as ORAR, or “once right always right”.

OSAS by definition means a person while still alive believes they are saved and nothing they do will change that.
The Catholic Church has no version of that at all.

 

[mcq72]

except you have no way of knowing if you are being perfectly guided.
As a Catholic, I have the peace of knowing that my Church is perfectly guided by Christ - all I have to do is follow her.

Very well.

There is a fine balace between rightly leaning on Jesus and rightly leaning on a " church".

I mean when someone leads you to a well, do you still lean heavily on the one who led you there.

Indeed, it is more than just in the CC where the church is followed, leaned upon, more than Christ.

Jesus said, " Abide in Me". Yes He also said if you listen to the apostles you listen to Him. Hence the balance.

A good follower is not impotent to to pray for and be diligent to beware of any leaven in our teachers, as admonished by the Lord.

If you were to know the Lord and Holy Ghost as we know Him you would not say we have no assurance of His perfect guidance…but perhaps you just doubt us. Regardless, we are not reeds shaken in the wind and testify of His glorious salvation and workings also.

 

[mcq72]

OSAS by definition means a person while still alive believes they are saved and nothing they do will change that.
The Catholic Church has no version of that at all

Understand. My point is that the CC has a version of that but applied to its magisterium…like nothing can change her always rightly teaching on faith, her innerancy.

 

[Montrose]

My point is that the CC has a version of that but applied to its magisterium

What does that mean? What does that have to do with OSAS?
I really do not understand what you are talking about.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Yes, understand the oral. Where we differ is that the CC fails to see or adapt to the scripture finally being completed. Another words they continue to act as before scripture was closed. They continue to act as if we were still in apostolic times with their authoritative oral teaching. You use justification, of they had no bible then (as if OT was what?), so therefore you will continue to justify same way even after we have bible. Wht set the record straight thru writing if it can still be bested?

So like I said, it’s not just the teaching (oral or written) but also the understanding. The interpretation.

You’re thinking “written word first, understanding second” & that’s not the way it works. Ever. Words have never been put to paper without clear intent of understanding being expressed. Never.

Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Jude, & John knew exactly what they wanted to express when they put pen to paper & the Holy Spirit inspired them to express those particular truths in their writings.

To interpret those thoughts from today’s perspective is like a 2000 year old game of telephone.

To express those thoughts in today’s reality… we’ll that’s closer to what the Church does.

 

[ArchStanton]

Yes. No longer rest on other’s opinion, on what others say.

Jesus asks “Whom do you say that I am?”, amidst many other opinions. What we answer then is hopefully our testifying opinion. May we also hope that moreso from tradition and forefathers, even scripture, that it comes from the Father above.

Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart ,

on your own intelligence do not rely ;

In all your ways be mindful of him,

and he will make straight your paths .

Rev. 8:14.

?

Well yes, investigate, as the Spirit discerns all things.

But is it the backdoor when you have come out of her?

Ah yes, so you are still ‘Catholic’ through Baptism.

 

[Justin_Mary]

This too is false, as if we didn’ t have His perfect guidance. That is like saying if we (CC) can’ t be right on a particular issue of faith, then no one else can in the body of Christ.

I get what you’re saying. It’s as if the Church is saying, “because I said so.” Like a parent would to a child lacking maturity to understand.

But that is not what we understand. From our understanding it’s more like, “that’s what Jesus taught us.” With all the evidence to back it up. Some of us accept that evidence, others do not.

But it is not & never has been,”because I said so.”