Well, I can partially agree. He did give his priesthood the authority. I’m sure you are aware of Peter’s words on this, " YOU also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. " 1st. Peter. 2:5.The Church in my view is everyone who has been baptized belongs to Christ Church which authority Jesus gave to His priesthood led by the Pope.
Yes I am, but here’s a news flash, so are you.Yes you are an imperfect part of His Church
I have no problem with baptism. I believe in it. whether or not it is an entrance rite, is debatable. Secondly, I know you are talking specifically about water baptism. I am not.Why do you think that baptism did not replace circumcision as the entrance rite into the Kingdom?
I’ve never seen even one reference to Mary’s sinless state, actually the exact opposite is true. I’m not sure what you’re trying to pull off here. Then you say, “people who received their faith whole and entire from the Apostles…” is a subjective, invalidated, wishful notion. It doesn’t exist in God’s word. Therefore it is not of God. Faith is produced by what God has said, not by what people may have heard.Although we see references to Mary’s sinless state in Scripture, since people who received their faith whole and entire from the Apostles do not extract doctrines from the text, we are not concerned that all there is to be known may not be recorded specifically in Scripture.
I’m not sure what world you are living in Vonsalza, Not only do I belong to such an authoritative Church, but this same Church has a wonderful skill to interpret scripture. I thank God for such a church.But where you run a foul like so many other Protestants is that you don’t have an authoritative Church to actually interpret scripture for you.
One of the 4 marks of the Church is that it is apostolic.I’m not sure what world you are living in Vonsalza, Not only do I belong to such an authoritative Church, but this same Church has a wonderful skill to interpret scripture.
If it were, then Christendom wouldn’t have had at least 7 ecumenical councils followed by a plethora of additional councils/synods by the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.Secondly God’s word is more than sufficient to answer my questions. It is a completed work in every way.
This is a good point. It was Luther who replaced the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ with Sola Scriptura. Calvin just took advantage of this innovative doctrine to jettison many Apostolic Teachings and specifically, the authority of the hierarchy.I don’t think Calvin replaced the Catholic Church with a higher authority.
I am not sure what these might be, but he replaced Catholic authority with his own, and that of which he only approved. He was a vicious and intolerant as any Catholic Bishop when it came to following the new way.I think he simply included non-Catholic traditions to the mix.
There are some aspects of spiritual authority possessed by each believer, but Scripture is clear that not all are called to each office, gift, or vocation.All spiritual authority comes from Christ and his word and is distributed to all parts of His body not just one part.
we all share in the role of priest, prophet, and king, by being baptized into Christ, but not all of us are called to be overseers of the flock.All believers are in the priesthood of God to offer up spiritual sacrifices… But Peter didn’t mention anything about a pope, nor did the others.
The early Christian Church did not argue over whether or not babies should be baptized, only whether or not the 8 days should pass (as was the Tradition for infants born into Israel). Why do you think this occurred?I have no problem with baptism. I believe in it. whether or not it is an entrance rite, is debatable. Secondly, I know you are talking specifically about water baptism. I am not.
Jesus gave us the conditions to enter the kingdom of God. You must be born of the Spirit so that you can spiritually see it, and then enter it.
I don’t doubt that you are unable to receive the references that exist. You have never seen a Scriptural reference to which books belong in the NT, but that does not seem to bother you at all! You will accept Sacred Tradition when it suits you, and reject it when it does not.I’ve never seen even one reference to Mary’s sinless state, actually the exact opposite is true.
I am sure it must seem like it to you, but history is clear that the first documents in the NT began to be written at around 50AD, and continued up until as much as 100 AD. The Teaching of Jesus was whole and entire in the Church during that time, and has continued to be to this day. You don’t seem to believe that God is willing and able to keep His word…Then you say, “people who received their faith whole and entire from the Apostles…” is a subjective, invalidated, wishful notion.
I think you lost me here.Faith is produced by what God has said, not by what people may have heard.
It is good that we can agree on something! However, Sacred Tradition does contradict your interpretation of Scripture, so it appears to you as though there is a contradiction which only exists in your perceptions.Oral tradition, if it was consistent, will never contradict holy scripture.
This is the great innovation of the Reformation. Each man has been empowered to interpret the Scriptures according to his own experience and education (or lack thereof) so that there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.Scripture is always the measuring ruler to determine what is of God and what is not.
The great doctrinal innovation that spawned the fruit of the Reformation (division and disunity). But when we read the writings of the successors of the Apostles, we find that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are, on the contrary, two equal strands of the same thread. The children of the Reformation are separated from the Sacred Tradition, so have lost the lens through which Scripture is to be understood. The Scripture was never intended to be separated from the faith that produced it. The Apostolic Commandment has been abandoned by our separated brethren.Any tradition is ALWAYS is submission to inspired scripture.
Scripture was produced from the Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.Any tradition is ALWAYS is submission to inspired scripture.
Not only do I belong to such an authoritative Church, but this same Church has a wonderful skill to interpret scripture.
tgG, I think you do not see the contradiction of what you are saying here. You are affirming that you have people with “wonderful skill to interpret scripture” (which no doubt is consistent with innovative doctrines that were created at the Reformation) and yet you also claim that the Scriptures are more than sufficient to answer all your questions.Secondly God’s word is more than sufficient to answer my questions. It is a completed work in every way.
tgG has already admitted believing in a number of doctrines created at the Reformation, and believing preachers in his Reformed community that “interpret the scriptures” in a way that he finds life giving. So clearly, though claiming to adhere to Sola Scriptura, he really does not.If you could give me the scripture that states, that we should only believe what is written in scripture.
I am a member of the Episcopal Church. I do not hate the Catholic Church. In fact, I attend Catholic mass at least once a week. And I think that the Pope is Christ’s vicar on earth.Maybe because I was never a protestant I don’t understand this, but WHY are they so close-minded and harbor such irrational and frankly ridiculous hatred for the true Church? Were they raised that way?
Yeah,… we’ve all got a taste of what your interpretation is all about guanophore. I’m sorry but you don’t get to condemn our interpretation while you get a pass, it doesn’t work that way. When the N.T. says something like… " are not his brothers here with us? …" but then the CC turns it around to mean, well, tradition tells us that his brothers were really relatives because of their custom. na… other passages using the same Greek word use it to mean what we easily see it to mean, it was his brothers.interpretation of Scripture, so it appears to you as though there is a contradiction which only exists in your perceptions.
two things here: The title pope, is a title the founders of Christianity knew nothing about. It wasn’t in their speech, it wasn’t in their teaching, or in any N.T. narrative. But we do have Jesus words, “Call no man on earth your father…” Mt. 23:9 a clear teaching of Christ the CC needs to repent of.Pope as I am sure you know means father. Pope is the title that we gave the position that Jesus established for the head of His Church. If you could give me the scripture that states, that we should only believe what is written in scripture.
That sounds kinda snarky. Catholics can make private interpretations of scripture, so long as it does not conflict with the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles. Trouble is, I have not shared any of my interpretations on CAF! For that reason, I think you lost me here!Yeah,… we’ve all got a taste of what your interpretation is all about guanophore.
Did I say something condemnatory? Perhaps my reference to Calvin’s heresies sounded insulting? I guess you still espouse a majority of them. I am not really in a position to condemn them, though, that was done by the Church some centuries ago.I’m sorry but you don’t get to condemn our interpretation while you get a pass, it doesn’t work that way.
This is a good example of what I mean by personal perceptions. I know that many modern bible Christians espouse this view, but even the Reformers accepted the Apostolic teaching that Mary was Ever Virgin. Perhaps that is what you meant when you said they did not “go far enough”?When the N.T. says something like… " are not his brothers here with us? …" but then the CC turns it around to mean, well, tradition tells us that his brothers were really relatives because of their custom. na… other passages using the same Greek word use it to mean what we easily see it to mean, it was his brothers.
No one has suggested they did, tgG. This is just another strawman. “Pope” is Latin, a language that did not come into official use in the Church until the late third century. It is unreasonable to expect a word to be found earlier that was not in common ecclesiastical use. The same could be said for the word “trinity”. I don’t see you making the same complaint that the “doctrine” or “term” Trinity was unknown to the founders of Christianity! Listen to how it sounds “the word Trinity was not in their speech, it wasn’t in their teaching, or in any N.T. narrative”.The title pope, is a title the founders of Christianity knew nothing about. It wasn’t in their speech, it wasn’t in their teaching, or in any N.T. narrative.
And yet, the Apostles demonstrate the use of the word “father” to speak of their teachers, themselves, and their elders in the faith. I think you have taken this commandment out of context. If what you are saying is true, then the Apostles themselves violated it. More likely, it is your perception of it that is in error, rather than the behavior of the Apostles.But we do have Jesus words, “Call no man on earth your father…” Mt. 23:9 a clear teaching of Christ the CC needs to repent of.
On this one I have to agree with you. I cringe every time someone on here calls Peter the “head” of the Church. It think it just causes more confusion for people like you, and is not necessary. Peter does not need to be called a “head” in order for the Petrine ministry to be valid. Peter himself would cringe at such a thing!Secondly, in their teaching they taught that Christ alone is the head of the Church and not a man.
Yes, we are all called to bring Christ to the world, and be examples of His love and character. But we are not called all to the same offices and we don’t have all the same gifts and responsibilities. The successor of Peter in Rome has been charged with the care and feeding of the whole flock, and to strengthen his brethren. No one else was given this duty, which has been passed on from Peter to this day.The only example of being a representative of Christ is the example we all are called to. This is why I’ve said on this site, I will gladly kiss the ring of the pope, but he must kiss mine as well.
As far as a “ring”, the seal of the pope, and any jewelry he might wear are temporal items that have purposes in this world only and not the next. The seal of the pope, which he uses to mark official documents, when a pope dies or retires, is smashed so it can be buried with him.The only example of being a representative of Christ is the example we all are called to. This is why I’ve said on this site, I will gladly kiss the ring of the pope, but he must kiss mine as well.
I agree that there are many passages that point to the authority of Scripture, but it is also those same scriptures that point to the fact that authority was given as well to the Church. If it were not for that authority, you would be an Arian, and you would have no table of contents for that Holy Book with which you seem to love smacking us Catholics over the head.Thirdly, to the point about scripture being the only source. There is not one scripture to say exactly what you request, but the concept of it is surely in scripture and very clear, especially when it comes to tradition.
And I must reiterate, Protestants often do more with only part of the divine Truth than Catholics do with more. It is a testimony to the passionate faith of our siblings in Christ. Reformed Christians are, in some ways, like Apollos. He was passionate about the portion of the Teaching he had received.We know the N.T. is called the Word of God and is our source of all divine truth.
It is no if you reject part of what is written in the text, of course!But does scripture TEACH that tradition is another source of divine and inspired truth found in scripture or in addition to sacred scripture? The answer is no.
I think you are confused tgG. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish the difference between the Word of God that was delivered to the Church, and the traditions of men. These are two different types of tradition.Jesus charged the Pharisees of exalting the traditions of men above the word of God. How did they do this? By interlacing and intertwining their traditions with holy scripture, but eventually they came to see tradition more importantly than they did scriptures. How so?.. they made an interpretation of what the scripture should mean, but they were wrong.
Are you saying that calling the successor of Peter “pope” the word of God has no effect? Are you saying that the use of the word “Trinity”, or hypostatic union, or saying that Mary only had one child is “making the word of God of no effect”? Perhaps you can help me understand why these practices accomplish that?13 MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NO EFFECT, through your TRADITION which you have handed down. And many such things you do.” Mk 7:5-13
Are you calling men teachers here?O’ steve steve steve… You make such a good argument, but, guilt by association won’t work here. We are not false teachers. We believe Jesus Christ is the only begotten eternal Son of God who will come to judge the living and dead. He is God come in flesh and therefore past the biblical test. see 1st. John 4:1,2. We embrace this essential truth and proclaim it from the mountain tops. Heresy teachers, on the other hand deny the person of Christ. So, your pathetic guilt by association tactic is shameful and sad.