Catholics, what do you do with 1 John 5? It contradicts RCC doctrine concerning the assurance of salvation. See for yourself.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmcounts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
šŸ‘ Hello,you hit it right on the head. I stopped comming to this site because I was not treated by some, with love but anger. Jesus spoke to your insides to your heart not the outside with the sword,that’s how the Romans did it and we know from history they were wrong and unkind and chased other’s away to start their own religions in the world. Love of Christ Nancy God Bless Your Kindness. I hope others can see Jesus in you as I do .
Anger is not the opposite of love,a nd it is appropriate to get angry at injustice and error. You have posted a lot of error here at CAF. It is not loving to confirm others in error.
Are you giving him the bums rush! You should go to library and look up LOVE,PATIENCE,FORGIVENESS,JESUS,DOMINATION,HOSPERTALITY,SELF RIGHTOUSNESS,POMPUS,AND AWARENESS.I GIVE YOU THIS IN LOVE:) Nancy
Not a bit! The library is a great place to study. I have spent a lot of time in there. I suggest it fall all ā€œbumsā€ and would be happy to see a "rush’ to it.

The love i have for others will not substitute for their learning. My brother has a wrong idea about what the Church teaches. i am suggesting he take steps to correct his errors, then we can discuss it. if he is going to bash the Catholic Church, i would prefer that he find fault with what we actually believe, instead of his erroneous ideas.
šŸ˜‰ In Mathew:7 the church is not the rock Jesus is th rock of our Salvation. That means weather or not your in a church or in bed Jesus is the rock we lean on jesus and not our own understanding the Holy Spirit is everywhere Grow where you are Planted. Love of Christ Nancy
This is a common misunderstanding of this scripture. Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to ā€œRockā€. Every time God changes a person’s name in scripture it is a sign of a change in vocation and identity. God revealed to Peter the identity of Jesus. Jesus grafted Peter into His own ā€œrocknessā€, making Peter a foundation stone for the Church he intended to build.

I agree that jesus is the Rock whereever we are, but he wanted us to be members of his body, the Church. That Church is founded upon the Apostles.
 
hi ata, sorry, you are not bor again till you ask the jesus to come into you and make you over.come into me and sup with me and i with you
This is true, jp. This is what we ask of God during baptism. This is what is meant by ā€œcalling upon his nameā€. šŸ‘

Acts 22:15-16
16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
when i go to mass, its at st bernadettes in baldwin hills los angeles
If you have been to mass,then you know that Catholics make a profession of faith every time we participate!
sorry ata, that made not much sense. ask god to come into you. be born again. then we can talk
Perhaps you have a perception problem? If you have been to Mass then you also have observed that Catholics ask Jesus to come into us at each and every Eucharist. We pray using this verse:

Matt 8:8
"Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.

We say, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed. Perhaps you are have hardness of heart against the Catholic mass, and cannot ā€œseeā€ these things?

Jesus did speak to the heart, but he also did not put up with hypocrisy.
sorry atta, the act of dunking in water doesnt remake you, as in born again.
This is true! If it did, we would be reborn every time we jumped in and out of the local pool! 😃

Baptism, on the other hand, is not a washing for the body, but of the soul. It is in this regenerative washing of water, calling upon His name, that we are reborn.

Titus 3:4-8
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

Baptism saves us by the washing of regeneration in the HS.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism is an appeal to God for a clear conscience because the hs washes away all sins in baptism.
hi east, never seen you hear befor. must be new member. welcome, friend.you say the faithful must adhere to morality? which faithfull? the pews or the clergy?
We are all called to purity, from the top to the bottom. A failure of purity does not make Christ impure, or His bride.
say, am i a bad guy cause i dont know all the things about the catholic religion? ive been reading up on it furiously. i wont even go into it now. im finding out about what the vatican has been up to though. tisk tisk
No, but it is wrong to misrepresent the facts. you bear false witness against the Catholic Church, and this is a grievous wrong. you will be held accountable for tearing and biting the Body of Christ. you will also be accountable for your duplicity.
 
Will someone clearly and precisely state the theological point we are discussing.

ā€œWhat do you do withā€ is conversational English. We are having a long winding conversation. We need an exact focus so that we can arrive at a conclusion.

Thanks,
Anthony
The OP is an erroneous forumlation. Nothing in Scripture contradicts the Teaching of the Church, since they both com from the same Source. The discussion is, therefore, based on a faulty premise. How can one derive an ā€œexact focusā€ from an erronous premise?
 
šŸ™‚ Guano,I"m sorry to disturb you but I was thinking of going back to the Catholic Church that’s why I’m at this forum but now you say you are not bible Christians? That’s rather disturbing for I believe in sound doctrine and the Bible is a very big part of my life.love of Christ Nancy.
**
Hi nancy, šŸ‘‹

Well you are lucky that you are thinking about coming back to Jesus’ real church. I think you may have misunderstood Guan, or you have a misunderstanding of the importance of the bible! The bible as you presently know it are our sacred scriptures that have been corrupted and distorted by Protestant groups for their own purposes.Click on: Blibe In 1611AD, the first counterfeit scriptures were presented to the world! The Catholic church is still using all the scriptures it approved 1546AD. The Church is firmly grounded in real doctrine as taught by Jesus. Every Mass has Bible readings, Psalms, and the Gospel. Every Catholic around the world hear the same words of God on the same day!
I read the bible every day! I pray the rosary every day! I go to Mass and eat the body opf christ as often as I can. Your pray life will deepen when you are able to consume the real body and drink the real blood of Christ again. ā€œSoundā€ doctrine is: John chapter 6.

I wish you well! God Bless**
 
hey ben, well, i was kicked out of the catholic church, for the time being, by members in here. so, i dont belong to a religion, so how can i lie about it? what about your religion.? my grandma used to say…those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw rocks.
Sorry, jp, you are misrepresenting the Truth again. One member cannot be ā€œkicked out of the Catholic Churchā€ by another member. It does not work that way. you excommunicated yourself from the Church Christ founded when you abandoned the faith. it seems like this happened many years ago. It also seems possible that you never actually understood or embraced the Catholic faith in the first place. You seem poorly catechized, and steeped in theological error. It is likely that you ignorance of the Catholic faith made you an easy target for evangelists.

You belong to the Protestant religion. You may not realize it, but you do. I am not sure how you, before God, can lie about this, but you did, by posting falsehood on your public profile.

No Catholic on CAF has claimed to be perfect. Neither have any claimed that the members of the clergy are perfect. If you have been deeply hurt by a member of the Catholic clergy, i suggest you pursue healing and forgiveness, rather than holding onto this resentment you have. Holding resentment is like drinking poison, and expecting the other person to die.
so the holy ghost hovers over the Church and protects it from error.
no. The hs inhabits the Church. The hs is the Soul of the Church. Without the hs, the Church would have no life in her.

John 20:21-23
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ā€œReceive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.ā€

The only other time God blew the breath of life into man was at creation. Here, He creates his Bride, the Church, by blowing the breath of Life into the Church.

John 14:16-17
16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
hey, i learned that he catholics teach peter came to rome. its historical fact the peter never made it to rome.
This is yet another example of an error you have posted, probably based on ignorance. It is likely that you have never read the historical references of Peter being in Rome. this is why I sent you to the library. It was not a ā€œbum’s rushā€ but a plea for you to educate yourself so you won’t futher embarrass your self by posting such drivel as this.
 
Code:
:) Guano,I"m sorry to disturb you but I was thinking of going back to the Catholic Church that's why I'm at this forum
This is commendible, Nancy. I hope you will not allow comments made by members here (including mine) that have hurt your feelings to prevent your exploration. This is not a disturbance to me, but my main reason for being here!
but now you say you are not bible Christians? That’s rather disturbing for I believe in sound doctrine and the Bible is a very big part of my life.love of Christ Nancy.
Ths is a common error that has been running rampant since the Reformation about 500 years ago. Catholics also believe in sound doctrine, and that the Bible should be a very big part of our lives. however, Catholic doctrine is based on Christ, and was complete before a word of the new testament was written. The NT was then written from the beliefs of the Church jesus founded.
 
sorry atta, the act of dunking in water doesnt remake you, as in born again.
😃 Yes! we’ll gather at the river that flows from the throne of God Amen! What a site! love of Christ Nancy (Think Hebrews:6:1-6)šŸ˜‰
 
This is commendible, Nancy. I hope you will not allow comments made by members here (including mine) that have hurt your feelings to prevent your exploration. This is not a disturbance to me, but my main reason for being here!

Ths is a common error that has been running rampant since the Reformation about 500 years ago. Catholics also believe in sound doctrine, and that the Bible should be a very big part of our lives. however, Catholic doctrine is based on Christ, and was complete before a word of the new testament was written. The NT was then written from the beliefs of the Church jesus founded.
šŸ‘ I was told that the first church was called the Way?And I believe in the whole bible not just the new testement,are you denying that Christ came before the Catholic church? Nancy Do you believe the church came first?
 
hey dis, i fall short of doing everything jesus said to do. so, i hope there is forgiveness somewhere, or im going to be at that big wiennie roast in the sky.i go to mass once in a while. jesus never established and organiztion. he deals with each person separately. and the whole group of svaed folks is his church. i hope you understand this. my friend
Jesus DID establish an institution… (St. Mt 16:18)… and he wouldn’t establish a Church and make things a certain way if he didn’t want everyone in that Church… He loves everyone and wants the best fro everyone, not just a few… who happen to have Catholic parents, etc… (which reminds me to be t hankful for the one thing my parents did right… OK… they did a few other things right… but anyway… I am thankful they baptized me as a baby:) )

anyway… the weenie roast won’t be in the sky… i heard its down under… St. Faustina’s account of Hell is really scary… #741 (i think) of her diary… If more people read that, they would take Hell more seriously… Some people don’t think its going to be ā€œall that badā€ā€¦ They are So wrong…

i do agree that all those who follow Christ are members of His Church…

but again, Jesus would not establish a visible Church on this Earth (a light on a hill) & then cover it with a bushel basket… meaning He wouldn’t institute a Church and then, somehow, not necessarily want ALL to be members of that Church…

No…

He loves EVERYONE…

God bless… šŸ™‚
 
hey SHW, so the holy ghost hovers over the Church and protects it from error. do you watch the news? forget the news. lets see what jesus said. a tree cannot bring forth good fruit and evil. a well cannot put forth sweet water and bitter. if a tree has evil fruit, it is evil, from top to bottom
Let’s portray the tree as Jesus’ Church in this case. The Church does not error and the Church does not do evil deeds. It cannot error and it cannot do evil deeds because it is Jesus’ Church and it is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and Jesus said that He would be with His Church until He returns to earth. So, if Jesus’ Church errors, then Jesus is a liar. Well, we know that Jesus is not a liar. Jesus is truth and He never changes.

Yet, Jesus chose Judas as an apostle for His Church. Judas betrayed Jesus. Judas did an evil deed and he was a member of Jesus’ Church and Jesus even personally chose Him. Yet Judas still betrayed Jesus.

Does this make Jesus’ Church a false or evil Church because Judas betrayed Him? Of course not! The Church is still good. But members of the Church personally do evil deeds.

These are two totally different things and a distinction needs to be made between them in order to understand. The Church cannot error but individual members of the Church can and do sin.
 
Can you please tell me where in the Catechism I can find this instruction? I can’t seem to locate it.

this is incorrect, which is one reason I wonder where the ā€œinstruction can be foundā€. We are justified by the blood of Christ when we are baptized into his death. Baptism is an event, not a ā€œprocessā€

This is also an error. Sanctification does begin at the moment of baptism, but it is not ā€œdifferentā€ or separated from justification.
It is true, though, that some are cut off from grace.

This is also false. Glorification is not ā€œdifferentā€ in character (being a free gift based on his grace) from justification and sanctification.

False. Salvation includes justificaiton, sanctification, and glorification. All of them together, the same process. The same spirit that works all of them in us.

i think it is more proper to refer to baptism as an event. howeve,r i agree, it is completed/done.

The grace that begins to work in us when we are justified continues to work. While we have no need to be baptized again, the grace that is at work in us continues to conform us into the the image and likeness of God.

This is not catholic. It may be your own theology? For Catholics, sanctification is tied intracely to justification. Those who are not justified cannot be sanctified. They are not separated.

The Catholic Church also teaches that some continue to be purified after death.

how is that obvious?

None of this is Catholic. I am not sure where you are getting it. :confused:

Catholics don’t refer to these events as ā€œdiffferent kindsā€ of salvation.

I am not sure which link this is, but if your understanding and representation of it is accurate, then it is putting out erroneous information.
:eek: M&M’SPLEASE READ 1Thes:4:3, 1Cor:6:11 Sanctified, 1Thes:5:9 Rom:1:16 Salvation, Rom:5:18 Justification Then read,1Cor:1:18,19. Love of Christ Nancy
 
:eek: M&M’SPLEASE READ 1Thes:4:3, 1Cor:6:11 Sanctified, 1Thes:5:9 Rom:1:16 Salvation, Rom:5:18 Justification Then read,1Cor:1:18,19. Love of Christ Nancy
I could go to any different denominations website and get a list of similar list of scripture quotes from their statement of beliefs/faith. Simply listing what you believe and citing (your interpretation of) scripture to back it up proves nothing. There have been Christians for two millenia and they haven’t been making things up as they go along. If you have a point then you should be able to back it up with extant writings from 1,500 AD, 1,000 AD, 500 AD 250 AD etc…

I wait patiently for your reply. :coffeeread:
 
I could go to any different denominations website and get a list of similar list of scripture quotes from their statement of beliefs/faith. Simply listing what you believe and citing (your interpretation of) scripture to back it up proves nothing. There have been Christians for two millenia and they haven’t been making things up as they go along. If you have a point then you should be able to back it up with extant writings from 1,500 AD, 1,000 AD, 500 AD 250 AD etc…

I wait patiently for your reply. :coffeeread:
šŸ˜‰ You think what you want about me some day the real historian will arrive and give you a lesson on dates,people,change,and understanding.:blessyou:
 
If you have a point then you should be able to back it up with extant writings from 1,500 AD, 1,000 AD, 500 AD 250 AD etc…

I wait patiently for your reply. :coffeeread:
ā€œI have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error…as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.ā€
  • Augustine, in a letter to St. Jerome. 1100 years prior to the Reformation.
ā€œThe knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ.ā€
Athanasius, Contra Gentes, 318.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
  • Cyril of Jerusalem, mid 4th century.
ā€œwe make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.ā€
  • Gregory of Nyssa, also 4th century.
Got anything to say to that? :tanning:
 
The Catholic description of salvation says there is belief, then sanctification, then salvation post-death. Those look like separate processes to me, but I’m open to other ideas. Let me give you some options.

First, the ā€œbelieve and receiveā€ step. Process. Whatever. You believe in Jesus, and you receive salvation. No, we are baptized and receive salvation. You can believe all day long, but if you are not baptized, you are not saved.Is this complete salvation? Yes. Baptism completely washes away sin and fills us with saving grace.Are you only partially saved? Most Catholics will say it is complete salvation and would deny that they are only partially saved. Most would also deny the need to believe in Jesus a second time and be saved again. It’s something you do once. You believe once, you receive once, and you receive it all No, we are not Word Faith, believe & receive" protestants./COLOR]. If you feel that you need to ā€œbelieve and receiveā€ again, it’s probably because you misunderstood the nature of what it means to believe on Jesus and receive salvation. The church leaders on here have probably dealt with this before.

Step two is sanctification. You do good works, and this process also leads to salvation. Wrong. We must be absolved of sins through the sacrament of confession. If I have the stain of deadly sin on my soul, all the good works in the world will not remove it. Only true contrition and repentance will. But once my souls is stainless again, good works sustain God’s saving grace and, most importantly, help us to avoid future sins.Is this the same type of salvation that you received when you first believed? If so, that necessarily means you were only partially saved. If you really were completely saved before and now there’s more salvation, one is Salvation A and the other is Salvation B.

Now, I know someone on here is going to say ā€œIt’s not a new kind of salvation; it’s just maintenance of the salvation you already had. You can lose your salvation, and sanctification causes you to persevere and not lose what you have.ā€ Nobody here that knows their faith will say any such thing.Well, in that case, the process of sanctification does not give you salvation. It only allows you to keep the salvation you already had. Is the message the RCC is trying to send? The message I’ve been getting is that a person must carry out works in exchange for salvation, and that the process of sanctification is one of ā€œbecoming saved.ā€ Meaning you’re receiving salvation and being saved right now.

So either the first process left you ā€œpartially savedā€ (which I doubt any Catholic will profess) or you really are fully saved when you believe and the process of sanctification is one that Does Not grant salvation, but is one of perseverance- where you’re keeping the salvation that you already had. (If that’s what you decide on, you’re dangerously close to agreeing with me in saying ā€œworks don’t lead to salvation.ā€) Those are the only two options I can suggest. Of course, the third option is one where there are two processes that give you two different salvations. But it looks like that one didn’t go over too well. So we’ll explore other options. I’m open to your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Anyway, the second process ends when you die, and the third process only begins after you die. Wrong again. The Church teaches that the INSTANT you die, you are judged. There is no ā€˜getting saved’ after you die. If you were in a state of grace, you go to heaven, possibly after time in purgatory to cleanse yourself of venial sins. But if you were in a state of deadly sin- off to hell you go. there is no other choice. You state all these things as though you are actually stating Catholic beliefs, but since you refuse to give specifics as to how you came to the conclusion that we believe these absurd things, it will be assumed that you are simply repeating the drivel of other uneducated protestants.Get a new body, live in God’s presence…You know something? I don’t want to get into the third process too in depth. It gets us way too off-topic. Overall, I guess it’s just something that Catholics refer to as another kind of salvation, while I just refer to it as dying and going to be with the Lord. It’s a promise that God keeps because I’m saved. According to me, anyway. Catholics will add that this, too, is ā€œbeing saved.ā€ So I have to go back to the same two possibilities as before. If this is part of the same salvation, is it because you were only partially saved before death? Is that why you need to receive more salvation (of the same kind, in this case)? Or is this a case of God delivering on His promise to someone who was completely saved…in which case there’s No New Salvation? (Third option- not so popular around here- it’s a different kind of salvation added to the first two. But you guys don’t seem to like that one). Anyway, if you’re going to refer to events past death as ā€œsalvation,ā€ you have to somehow avoid saying you were only partially saved up to that point and still find a reason to call it salvation. Otherwise, you’re stuck with calling it a separate kind of salvation.

Here it is again, just so it’s easier to copy and reply.

Three possibilities (one that some of you have rejected already).

I’m looking forward to seeing which option you decide on. Remember this, though: If you say sanctification is a process of granting salvation to you, you are disqualified from Option 2. The only question remaining is the nature of that salvation: Were you incompletely saved before or are you receiving Salvation B?

Enjoy!
 
ā€œI have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error…as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.ā€
  • Augustine, in a letter to St. Jerome. 1100 years prior to the Reformation.
ā€œThe knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ.ā€
Athanasius, Contra Gentes, 318.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."
  • Cyril of Jerusalem, mid 4th century.
ā€œwe make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.ā€
  • Gregory of Nyssa, also 4th century.
Got anything to say to that? :tanning:
It is truly amazing at how dedicated one can be to the Bible and the canons but accept the edited edition made after 1500 years of Christian Truth in the 77 books as they were established by the CC. To take a document from the source it was established by and remove it from its counterpart, Sacred Tradition, and they to claim devotion to what is left does not make sense at all. One should be wondering where anyone (Luther and alike) could come up with such audacity , yet they don’t.
Now if you want proof that the New Testament is inter-related to and makes references to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, refer to the information at the following link.

cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm

Part 1 of 3
 
part 2 of 3

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, ā€œI commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to youā€ (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, ā€œSo then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letterā€ (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, ā€œNow we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from usā€ (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, ā€œ[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others alsoā€ (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

Papias

ā€œPapias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from traditionā€ (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

ā€œAt that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from traditionā€ (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus

ā€œAs I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the sameā€ (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

ā€œThat is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?ā€ (ibid., 3:4:1).

…

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

ā€œWith this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic traditionā€ (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Clement of Alexandria

ā€œWell, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed traditionā€ (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

ā€œAlthough there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic traditionā€ (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

continued to part 3
 
part 3 of 3

Cyprian of Carthage

ā€œ[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any wayā€ (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).

Athanasius

ā€œAgain we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ā€˜we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heavenā€ (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

ā€œBut you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been ableā€ (ibid., 29).

Basil the Great

ā€œOf the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere termā€ (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Continued at

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
 
…
Remember that RCC doctrine is man’s testimony and 1 John is God’s testimony…
Uh, that is a false dichotomy.
  1. The New Testament was written by the Church. Therefore, 1 John is Church testimony. It is the Word of God written by the Church.
  2. RCC doctrine, is God’s testimony through the Church. It is the Tradition of God.
The reason you have the problems you have in your faith is because you separate Church doctrine from Scripture.

Didn’t you ever notice that Jesus wrote not one word of Scripture. He established Traditions. These Traditions resulted in the New Testament. These Traditions also resulted in Catholic Doctrine.

Sincerely,

De Maria
 
To take a document from the source it was established by and remove it from its counterpart, Sacred Tradition, and they to claim devotion to what is left does not make sense at all.
The only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is that the Protestant Bible preserves the Jewish canon of the Old Testament as it was laid down since before the birth of Jesus while the Catholic Bible includes all the intertestamental books except for three.

The main point here is that the source of the Old Testament canon (in any sense of the word ā€œsourceā€) is not the Church of Rome. Interestingly enough, the OT canon is the only place where the Church of Rome differs (in part) from almost everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top