challenge question, who can answer this

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
Do you have a priest consecrate the host? If not then you don’t have consecrated host, and apparently DON’T know what consecrated host is, as it is consecrated only by a priest.

That brings up another question: Do you have Catholic Priests in your church/denomination?

Anglicans and Episcopalians have priests who consecrate the host. They believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated host. They do not have doctrines such as transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but they do believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the consecrated host, it is not just a symbol of his presence, and they demonstrate their beliefs via reverence. They genuflect to the tabernacle. They keep watch with Him on Holy Thursday. They have sacristies with sinks that drain to the ground. They often genuflect when leaving the pew to receive communion, and usually kneel to receive.

But are these “priests” actually priests, as Catholics define “priests” to be?

If they aren’t, how can the host be consecrated if consecration requires a priest, as Catholics define “priests”?

Some Catholic priests who have left the Roman Catholic Church have been received into the Episcopal or Anglican Church and may function as Anglican or Episcopal priests. To the best of my knowledge, the churches of the Anglican Communion recognizes ordination by the Roman Catholic Church, even though the Roman Church does not recognized ordination in the Anglican or Episcopal Church.

So, if the Church (Catholic) does not see these “priests” as actual priests, then the act of consecration of the host by them would be “non-working”?

I believe, if I’m not mistaken, which I may be, that unlike baptism, consecration of the host actually does require a Catholic priest to perform, which makes a non-Catholic “consecrated host” nothing more than a “symbol” of Jesus, and no real presence at all.

Where am I wrong here?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Excellent Response. I can say now it does make sense. But could i be so bold as to interpret what you are saying is, no the Church can not be divided according to the Apsotles Creed and they do say it and do believe in it but dont either want to except thats its true, or wont but it is the truth and thats all they will admit to. Only because this is one of the few things in the bible that cant be interpreted differently. But my question how can anyone TRUELY say i believe in it but I just dont want to follow it. So for all of you who believe in it and follow it being that i dont you need to go my way because I cant so I wont let you.

I mean doesnt it come a time in life that you have to say yes i do have a choice. Rather my choice is right or wrong its none of your business. And to say yes my choice is wrong you have proven that but you worry about yourself and let me worry about myself.

God’s gift of free will allows us to err, that is quite true. The real choice in these matters isn’t based on intellectual arguments, but on where one feels comfortable in placing authority over oneself.

One either feels it appropriate to allow God to appoint authorities which we are to submit to (within reason of course), or not.

The protestant, and in my opinion juvenile, opinion is that ONLY God as God is an authority over me, and no man can be appointed to authority-ship over me.

The problem with this is that Jesus Himself tells us that all human authority comes from God, and we are to obey it unless the wielders of it demand that we sin in obeying said authority.

Now, my question is: Where does the Church (Catholic) demand that we sin?

When various heretics broke from the Church, why did they do so? What were the sins that the Church demanded that they perform?

If your position is that no Pope has ever been valid as the representative of God in the area of faith and morals, then who were these “non-Catholic”, non-papist, Christians? Where is their thinking written down? Where did they touch history such that they left a mark whereby we can recognise them?

Who were the “fathers” of your denomination, or perhaps your “non-denomination”?

A few facts would be very illustrative to understand where you’re coming from, so that we can understand each other. Thanks.

…

 

[inchrist101]

Yet I have seen many “churches” who claim to teach what the Apostles taught yet are so very far from Apostolic teaching due to their preconceived notions that to claim that they teach what the Apostles taught is laughable.

Many churches consider what’s in the Bible as being what was taught by the Apostles and will simply refer to:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Also see:

2Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
2Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It may seem laughable to you because you’re used to Roman Catholic doctrine and assume that the Apostles taught those as well. Some would say that’s laughable.

Logic would dictate that if a Protestant was confused or had questions about what the Apostles taught they would look to the Church that brought together the Bible and closed the canon: the Roman Catholic Church.

Just because the Catholic church assembled the books and letters of the New Testament doesn’t make them the teaching authority. Your implication is that no one outside the Roman Catholic church could even have a clue which is preposterous. I think what you are referring to is some of these boutique churches that claim they “teach the Bible” and usually one finds a part time evangelist soliciting donations because GOD will make you rich. This doesn’t automatically constitute it as a Protestant church by the way.

If you research why the 4 Gospels were chosen you will find an interesting answer. Someone didn’t just sit down and say “we are the Roman Catholic church with the authority and here they are”. Careful thought went into deciphering which manuscripts were authentic and which were believed to be fake. This wasn’t done in a vacuum. A good book for this is Josh Mcdowell’s “The best evidence demands a verdict” in which he presents an outstanding case for the historicity and reliability of the Bible.

I ask you does your “church” follow the order of the Mass?

St Justin Martyr, First Apology to the Emperor Titus-135 A.D.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;
and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

Order of the mass? So I guess you’re going to tell me that if a church doesn’t follow the exact “order of the mass” as you say then they are a false church. This may represent a tradition but is hardly a requirement to worship GOD. What I find most interesting is that Justin Martyr himself recognizes the importance of the writings of the Apostles as do all Protestant Churches.

And: And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. 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 by the Word of God, had both 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. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

These are teachings that Justin received. These are the teachings of the Catholic Church, the Church of Peter and the Apostles, the Church of Christ.

You need to re-read what Justin wrote. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them. Justin is saying what was delivered to written.

 

[inchrist101]

One, God owes us nothing. Two, what grace God gives us through His Body-the Church-He gives for our good. If you are a good Catholic Christian there is no reason to leave the Church because the grace that we receive at Mass every week is the gift of heaven itself-God can’t give us any more than that.

This is the problem with our culture: self-centered feeling of entitlement.

Your thinking is still very skewed and I’m not sure why. It is true that GOD owes us nothing. But GOD’s grace applies to the entire race. Everyone on this earth believer/non-believer. Not just to the church. And GOD’s grace is not tbrough the church nor do we receive it every week at mass. You are badly misinformed here. We don’t go to church to receive HIS grace. It is through the Grace of GOD that we have Jesus Christ who paid the one time price for the sins of ALL mankind. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans. The choice we make is whether we want to accept Jesus as our savior or not. Just because you don’t accept it doesn’t mean you’re not under Grace anymore. You’re under Grace as long as you live. You can choose to accept Jesus on your death bed because you are under GOD’s Grace and GOD will lovingly take you into Heaven. I’ve spent 40 years in the Roman Catholic church and was never taught that Grace was received at mass. Look up the definition of Grace and understand what it really means. Your implication is that anyone who walks into mass receives Grace.

The only restriction that keeps people from receiving that grace which Jesus gives in the Mass is themselves and their ability to open themselves up to that gift. It’s not just some arrogant attitude, it’s the truth. And I pity those who feel that to be fulfilled that they have to turn away from that Gift which is the source of all love, grace, and happiness.

Again, Jesus doesn’t give us Grace in the mass. We are UNDER GOD’s Grace and are free to choose Jesus as our savior. The purpose of going to mass is to worship GOD and to partake in the Lord’s Supper which is the ultimate outward expression and declaration of our Faith in Jesus Christ as our savior.

Therefore it’s not the Church’s fault, it’s the fault of the individual who leaves. I pray for all those that God soften their hardened hearts so that they return home. Amen.

Whoever said it was the churches fault?? Certainly not me. People fall away for various reasons. They lose touch with their Faith, they lose confidence in the church. There are a multitude of reasons. I like your spirit and dedication but your thinking is inaccurate.

 

[inchrist101]

To believe IN Jesus Christ is a lot different that Jesus is Lord and Christ. To believe IN Jesus Christ is to also believe in His Body-the Catholic Church.

Matthew 7:21 "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

The interesting thing here is that Matthew’s verse is not supporting your claim and really has nothing to do with it.

To believe IN Jesus as you say does not mean declaring: “Hey I believe Jesus is the Son of GOD and the Savior of all Mankind.” We all agree that even satan and the demons will offer you that. But rather deciding if you are going to accept him as your personal Savior or not. With regard to the scripture, Jesus is not saying he doesn’t know us because we don’t know HIS church. We become part of HIS church when we profess our acceptance of HIM as our Lord and Savior. Christ here shows that it will not be enough to own him for our Master, only in word and tongue. It is necessary to our happiness that we believe IN Christ, that we repent of sin, that we live a holy life, that we love one another. This is HIS will, even our sanctification. I can go out and say “in Jesus name I cast you demons out.” But that doesn’t mean I believe IN HIM. I may believe in the power of HIS name and try to use it but Jesus knows what truly is in our hearts. This is why he is saying depart from me you evildoers. People using HIS name but not actually believing IN HIM.

And John 2:23] Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, **many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; **[24] but Jesus did not trust himself to them, [25] because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

Curious passages. But I think pretty telling.

Yes and why was Jesus saying this?? Because some of these same people who professed believing in HIM would also tun out to be the same people who later yelled “crucify HIM”. So in essence Jesus is saying “I know what truly is in your heart”. You may see signs and say you believe but in your heart you really don’t. This is why our relationship with Jesus is so personal. No one but GOD knows what’s really in your heart.

And I believe that these differences have everything to do with our salvation. They’re the difference between saying ‘yes’ to God and saying ‘no’ to God. How many claim to say ‘yes’ to God yet have divorced and remarried another this committing adultery thus saying ‘no’ to Jesus’ commandment on marriage. This is only scratching the surface and I don’t want this to turn into something other than the topic we’re discussing. Just think about it, how many Christians claim to follow Christ yet day after day follow their own will and say ‘no’ to God.

Yes you are 100% correct. They say yes from their lips but then no with their actions. Exactly what James was saying when he states “A Faith without good deeds is a dead Faith”. But just remember. These same people who don’t do GOD’s will include you and me. We both still commit sin everyday whenther you want to believe it not. We are fortunate that GOD is so forgiving and this is the very nature of why Jesus was sent to us. GOD knows that we will sin but also knows what’s in our hearts. That’s why if we repent and truly truly accept Jesus then GOD grants us eternal life.

 

[climer97007]

I’ve spent 40 years in the Roman Catholic church and was never taught that Grace was received at mass. Look up the definition of Grace and understand what it really means.

Okay, so here are the definitions of Grace. Note that there are two given here, Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace. Note also that there have been controversies surrounding Grace:

Actual Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm

Sanctifying Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

Controversies on Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

Divine Grace:
newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm

Note that the topic of Divine Grace is covered under the heading of Eucharist, as this is the means God uses to Communicate His Divine Grace to us. Even after 40 years, there is always room to grow and learn.

Prayerfully, by virture of His manifold Graces,

Gene

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The GreyPilgrim
Yet I have seen many “churches” who claim to teach what the Apostles taught yet are so very far from Apostolic teaching due to their preconceived notions that to claim that they teach what the Apostles taught is laughable.

Many churches consider what’s in the Bible as being what was taught by the Apostles and will simply refer to:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Are you unaware that the Apostles had no bible as we know it?

What “scriptures” do you suppose that were being refered to in 2-tim-3:16

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Logic would dictate that if a Protestant was confused or had questions about what the Apostles taught they would look to the Church that brought together the Bible and closed the canon: the Roman Catholic Church.

Just because the Catholic church assembled the books and letters of the New Testament doesn’t make them the teaching authority.

So, was there a “church” which wasn’t the Church (Catholic) which simply “took the Church’s [Catholic] word for it” that the selected books in the bible were correct?

Who were these folks?

Your implication is that no one outside the Roman Catholic church could even have a clue which is preposterous.

Give a bible in the Fnooboo language to a Fnooboo native, where the Fnooboo people are a very isolated group of Ngano-glitlan people on the island of Wau in the far southeastern Pacific who have never had any contact with “Westerners” (Christian or elsewise) [or “Easterners” for that matter].

They can read the bible, as they can read their own language, but what does it MEAN to them?

The reason that we have the illusion that the bible is “easily understandable” is that our culture is BASED on it, and even then, one needs specialized experts, even if they are “part-time”, to more fully understand what is going on in the bible and what it means.

I think what you are referring to is some of these boutique churches that claim they “teach the Bible” and usually one finds a part time evangelist soliciting donations because GOD will make you rich. This doesn’t automatically constitute it as a Protestant church by the way.

That is precisely the definition of a protestant church.

If ANY set of doctrines that are self-proclaimed as “Christian” makes one a Christian, then on what grounds can anyone claim another person is not a Christian?

Truly, there aren’t in fact 30,000 “Christian denominations”, but rather several hundreds of millions of “Christian denominations” because each individual is fully authorized to be his own “Pope” and “decision maker a to doctrine” of his “church”.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
I ask you does your “church” follow the order of the Mass?

St Justin Martyr, First Apology to the Emperor Titus-135 A.D.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.
Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen;
and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.

Order of the mass? So I guess you’re going to tell me that if a church doesn’t follow the exact “order of the mass” as you say then they are a false church. This may represent a tradition but is hardly a requirement to worship GOD.

Once again your idea of “a church” is causing you difficulties. The Catholic Mass is several in actual practice, but must contain certain specific elements. If those elements aren’t there, then it’s not a Mass.

If a priest doesn’t perform the Mass, then it’s not a Mass, which all people of the Body of Christ are commanded to attend if at all possible. If they don’t then they distance themselves from being in communion with the Church.

BUT, the Mass is not the only way to “worship God”, either for Catholics or anyone else.

A “church” which doesn’t perform the Mass is not a “false church” meaning an “anti-Christian” church, but those who know better that not going to Mass is Anti-Christian who refuse to do so are members of their own, personal, “Me as Pope of my church” anti-Christian “church”.

What I find most interesting is that Justin Martyr himself recognizes the importance of the writings of the Apostles as do all Protestant Churches.

Why is that not obvious?

 

[inchrist101]

=EHRAM;3275562 I don’t understand why you believe that the Church could be built on the foundation of the Apostles without also recognizing the importance of apostolic succession. It is as if you thought a building could be built by laying the foundation and then building the penthouse without having anything in between. Could you please clarify how a church could be sure that it is handing on the teachings of the apostles unless the leaders were taught and ordained by those who were taught and ordained by those who were taught and ordained by… the original apostles.

“sighs”… Your analogy of the penthouse is not applicable here. We’re talking about people not buildings. This quite frankly is very easy. I worked at Johns Hopkins for 10 years. Some of the best surgeons in the world are trained there. One surgeon in particular, Dr. John Cameron, was/is one of the best pancreatic cancer surgeons that probably ever lived. He is retired now but has published books and books and books that contain his anals of surgical practices. Now let’s say you go to a hospital in California with pancreatic cancer. They say “Our teachings are Cameron-olic”. Someone says what does that mean to which they respond, “we follow his surgical practices to the T as written in his anals”. You may ask, was anyone trained by Dr. Cameron?? They respond no he has retired but we have revamped our treatment of pancreatic cancer and are now faithful followers of his written teachings with wonderful success. So there’s no Cameron-olic succession at this hospital but that doesn’t make his treatments any less effective.

I would ask you to show where it states anywhere in the Apostles Creed which is very very ancient that the words Apostolic sucsession are used. You also have to remember that just because the Roman Catholic church defines Apostolic as apostolic succession doesn’t make it correct. There are churches that claim Apostolic teachings. You know how they define them?? They believe they maintain spiritual contact with the Apostles and are guided via the Holy Spirit to teach as they would. Almost like having a supernatural conversation with the Apostles. Talk about wacky.

Also, early in Church history, the term “apostle” was applied to men other than the Eleven plus Matthias, e.g. Paul was an apostle as was James the Just. But soon it came to mean only certain men who were present for the first generation of Church history and the title and office of apostle was not transferred to the next generation.

That’s incorrect. James the just or James the less was of the original 12 Apostles. Unless I misunderstood you. Your implication was that he became one later. And it didn’t apply to men who were present for the first generation of church history. Go back and read Acts.:

Acts 1:21 “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.” 23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen 25 as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven.

Seems they were only able to come up with 2 in which they trusted GOD to make the choice by praying and casting lots. Paul was chosen directly by Jesus and we all know the story there. But it had nothing to do with being present for the first generation of church history. I’ve never even heard of that.

The original apostles taught by preaching, teaching, and writings. Much of what was preached and taught was not written down in their lifetimes.

Then when was it written?? Are you saying it was written by someone else?? Please clarify.

May I encourage you to read (or reread) the writings of the early Church Fathers to learn how what these men believed and taught during the first few centuries of the church? You can find the writings at newadvent.org/fathers/

As mentioned in another post I’ve spent 40 years in the Roman Catholic church so I’m quite familiar with what you are referencing.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

“sighs”… Your analogy of the penthouse is not applicable here. We’re talking about people not buildings. This quite frankly is very easy. I worked at Johns Hopkins for 10 years. Some of the best surgeons in the world are trained there. One surgeon in particular, Dr. John Cameron, was/is one of the best pancreatic cancer surgeons that probably ever lived. He is retired now but has published books and books and books that contain his anals of surgical practices. Now let’s say you go to a hospital in California with pancreatic cancer. They say “Our teachings are Cameron-olic”. Someone says what does that mean to which they respond, “we follow his surgical practices to the T as written in his anals”. You may ask, was anyone trained by Dr. Cameron?? They respond no he has retired but we have revamped our treatment of pancreatic cancer and are now faithful followers of his written teachings with wonderful success. So there’s no Cameron-olic succession at this hospital but that doesn’t make his treatments any less effective.

Actually, the Doc Carmeron DID in fact “lay on hands” to those who picked up his book, because he placed his FULL UNAMBIGUOUS KNOWLEDGE into his book.

If he DIDN’T do so, then each Doc who used his book would have had to “experiment” to get his techniques correct, and are really only using the book as a “suggestion”.

ONLY if you believe that ALL truth in faith and morals are in the bible unambiguously can you claim that the bible is perfectly sufficient to TEACH EVERYTHING PERFECTLY.

Have the teachings from the bible been clarified over time? If so then you admit that traditions, those you follow as those clarifications, were not originally in the bible, and that SOME sort of tradition IS of value.

You may actually claim this (the bible TEACHES EVERYTHING PERFECTLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY), which would utterly annihilate your credibility in my opinion, which I sure you care less than nothing about.

 

[rinnie]

Sorry i had to read it myself and i wrote it. I do talk fast and expect people to understand me. OK here it is again. Now the one person said they didnt say Catholic Church in her creed she said they said Christian Church. Ok i dont have a bone with her. But for the Church that says we do say it, and we mean 2 churchs. No thats not true. Prove it to me. You cant. There is no way in the creed that you can seperate it into more than one church. ITs impossible. Then if you can show me. That where i said you can be any religion you want, thats none of my business. But dont (lets say change what that creed means). And if you do you better have a better argument than the creed means there are separate churches. Especially when it says ONE CHURCH it even says ONE in it. not many churchs. what im saying you can believe what you want but dont tell me what I am taught is a lie, and if you do i need proof. catch me there, if not ill try again.

 

[inchrist101]

Actually, the Doc Carmeron DID in fact “lay on hands” to those who picked up his book, because he placed his FULL UNAMBIGUOUS KNOWLEDGE into his book.

If he DIDN’T do so, then each Doc who used his book would have had to “experiment” to get his techniques correct, and are really only using the book as a “suggestion”.

ONLY if you believe that ALL truth in faith and morals are in the bible unambiguously can you claim that the bible is perfectly sufficient to TEACH EVERYTHING PERFECTLY.

Let me say it this way and I quote:

2 Timothy 3: 14 But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. 15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

So Paul is saying scripture is basically sufficient here. He’s also saying that you can trust who has taught you the scripture. So the question comes down to WHO has the authority to teach and who can we trust?? You would argue ONLY the Roman Catholic church and I would disagree.

Have the teachings from the bible been clarified over time?

Yes by scholars who have more knowledge than I.

If so then you admit that traditions, those you follow as those clarifications, were not originally in the bible, and that SOME sort of tradition IS of value.

You make no sense here. You’re saying that if something is clarified from the Bible then it wasn’t originally in the Bible. If it’s clarified from the Bible then it’s in the Bible. I may not have understood it but once I do that doesn’t then make it tradition. It makes it an interpretation.

Tradition would be this wednesday when you and I will attend church and have someone place ashes either on our forhead or wrist. Ash Wednesday which kicks off Lent. Now Lent is not found in the Bible per se but the elements are very scriptural and very very ancient. People would throw dust/dirt on themselves to repent and to show GOD that we remember we came from dust and are nothing without HIM but dust. We see this in the book of Job. The Lent period signifies the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert with satan which is found in Matthew. So although the tradition as defined by the ancient church is not spelled out in the Bible, the elements are very Biblical. But certain tradition is not necessary for salvation. I don’t have to receive ashes to go to Heaven. What’s necessary for our salvation is clear to me in the Bible.

You may actually claim this (the bible TEACHES EVERYTHING PERFECTLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY), which would utterly annihilate your credibility in my opinion, which I sure you care less than nothing about.

Well I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t care. We wouldn’t be conversing if I didn’t. But you’re going to an extreme here. I was clarifying my position on Apostolic succession and I think I demonstrated my point which completely countered the building and penthouse point you were trying to illustrate. We all would agree that the Bible CAN be ambiguous in certain areas. But I believe there’s nothing ambiguous about John 3:16, or the 10 commandments, or the 2 greatest commands.

So help me out here. What do you think is ambiguous in the Bible that pertains to our salvation??

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

So Paul is saying scripture is basically sufficient here. He’s also saying that you can trust who has taught you the scripture. So the question comes down to WHO has the authority to teach and who can we trust?? You would argue ONLY the Roman Catholic church and I would disagree.

The authority goes to those men who have been proven to be good stewards of the faith, by those already established by Christ, of the true teachings of the faith, and also who have been endowed by the Spirit with the charisms proper to teaching and evangelazation. These that I’m referring to are the ordained clergy of the Catholic Church.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

So Paul is saying scripture is basically sufficient here. He’s also saying that you can trust who has taught you the scripture. So the question comes down to WHO has the authority to teach and who can we trust?? You would argue ONLY the Roman Catholic church and I would disagree.

Who DO you claim has the authority to teach you correctly?

Only tiny portions of the bible are sufficient for our salvation, such as simply Jesus’ Two Commandments. Why is more than that necessary?

 

[climer97007]

You make no sense here. You’re saying that if something is clarified from the Bible then it wasn’t originally in the Bible. If it’s clarified from the Bible then it’s in the Bible. I may not have understood it but once I do that doesn’t then make it tradition. It makes it an interpretation.

Dispensationalism is a tradition of interpretation. Luther began a new tradition of interpretation. Most heretical views are nothing more than a new tradition from men or women which can not be traced back to Christ and His Apostles through the history of the Church.

At least, this is an over-simplified way of looking at it.

Gene

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
If so then you admit that traditions, those you follow as those clarifications, were not originally in the bible, and that SOME sort of tradition IS of value.

You make no sense here. You’re saying that if something is clarified from the Bible then it wasn’t originally in the Bible. If it’s clarified from the Bible then it’s in the Bible. I may not have understood it but once I do that doesn’t then make it tradition. It makes it an interpretation.

Clarifications come from revelaton of what was unclear. Since the clarification was initially unclear, it was not IN the matter which was unclear, which in this case is the bible.

If it was not in the bible, but needed to be clarified, then you would “throw it out” as being not from the bible.

That is what tradition IS. It is interpreted clarification, via revelation, of the souce matter.

You may deny that you have a “tradition”, but you do have interpreted clarifications of the bible. Therefore, you have traditions.

Tradition would be this wednesday when you and I will attend church and have someone place ashes either on our forhead or wrist. Ash Wednesday which kicks off Lent. Now Lent is not found in the Bible per se but the elements are very scriptural and very very ancient. People would throw dust/dirt on themselves to repent and to show GOD that we remember we came from dust and are nothing without HIM but dust. We see this in the book of Job. The Lent period signifies the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert with satan which is found in Matthew. So although the tradition as defined by the ancient church is not spelled out in the Bible, the elements are very Biblical.

That is quite true, and those “traditional activities” are examples of interpretations of and from the bible, as you show above. They are traditions, clarifications of the meanings of things, from the bible.

“The Trinity” is a tradition. It is not mentioned in the bible, per se. It is a clarification of a biblical “item”.

But certain tradition is not necessary for salvation. I don’t have to receive ashes to go to Heaven. What’s necessary for our salvation is clear to me in the Bible.

What you decide is your tradition as to the necessities of your salvation are all that you need for your salvation in your “church of inchrist” of which you are your “pope”, with all the authority necessary to declare that you are infallibly correct in your chosen dogma.

And while your “church” only extends to the boundaries of your skin, you ARE a distant member of the Body of Christ the Church (Catholic) and are due as much of God’s mercy as He is willing to give someone at your particular culpable distance from Him as you are.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
You may actually claim this (the bible TEACHES EVERYTHING PERFECTLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY), which would utterly annihilate your credibility in my opinion, which I sure you care less than nothing about.

Well I don’t know why you think I wouldn’t care. We wouldn’t be conversing if I didn’t. But you’re going to an extreme here.

I was clarifying my position on Apostolic succession and I think I demonstrated my point which completely countered the building and penthouse point you were trying to illustrate. We all would agree that the Bible CAN be ambiguous in certain areas. But I believe there’s nothing ambiguous about John 3:16, or the 10 commandments, or the 2 greatest commands.

So help me out here. What do you think is ambiguous in the Bible that pertains to our salvation??

The bible is a book, not a “meaning”. The meaning of the bible is gotten from the tradition which one chooses to interpret the bible.

There can only be ambiguities between traditions, between “meaning repositories”, not **between **“THE bible” which is a single thing.

Apparently there is some “ambiguity” in our traditions, as I believe that taking the eucharist at Mass each Sunday if at all possible, is necessary, while you don’t.

You see no need in your tradition, which you incorrectly claim is “bible alone” without interpretation (as “interpretation” implies “tradition”), for Mass.

I see a definite need in my tradition for Mass.

The bible says what it says without any ambiguity, because it is finality of expression in truth. But we can only understand it via one tradition or another, and any two traditions will by nature be ambiguous in many places between them.

 

[climer97007]

The bible is a book, not a “meaning”. The meaning of the bible is gotten from the tradition which one chooses to interpret the bible.

I agree! Well, mostly.

The Bible was not originally a book. It was a collection of writings which originally were scrolls. At some point in history it became convenient to add chapter numbers, and verse numbers. And later still it became convenient to print the scrolls into the form of a modern “book”.

The numbering system did not exist in the original scrolls, for example. That we even use chapters and verses is a Catholic tradition stemming from their introduction into the Latin Vulgate Bible. Of course, this sort of tradition means nothing to salvation, but amplifies the points being made on all sides.

It is often times very convenient for non-Catholics to take advantage of Catholic traditions. In other aspects, such as in the more important traditions of faith and morals, not so much.

It is in these significant traditions around faith and morals that we see divergance from each other, and nothing reflective of unity. King Henry still wants his divorce, just go ask Prince big ears in England. People still want their birth control and abortion. Other folks want to pretend to be married, even though they are gay. Still others want their stem cells, no matter how many innocent babies have to be killed to get them.

At the more important intersections of faith, morals and tradition, we are really talking about life, death and the eternial destination of souls. This is where the rubber meets the road. All this other debate style nonsense is just driving me crazy. Drop the pride and the fragile egos and look for some humble pie and take a big piece.

Gene

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

inChrist:

Just because the Catholic church assembled the books and letters of the New Testament doesn’t make them the teaching authority.

You at least admit that it was the Roman Catholic Church that assembled the canon.

So if the Catholic Church was THE only Church in the ancient world, and the scriptures themselves say that the Body of Christ IS the Church. It is only through THAT Body which has the Apostles, therefore Christ, as their foundation and who left behind proven men-that is men who were taught to interpret the scriptures the way that the Apostles had- to teach and oversee (Greek: episkopen-rendered to english also means bishop) the Body. Then THAT Body and only that Body must be the Church. And that Body because of the fact that they uphold and maintain those sound and solid interpretations that they received from the Apostles and God allows them the authority to teach under the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Can you interpret another “church” from scripture? Absolutely, but only at the risk of putting yourself under the judgement of those who received the Apostolic and Catholic teachings and who new better.