C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Please read your own cathechism 1136 (with footnotes) WHAT IS THAT!? Your Bible wiew is covered up with philosophical ideas, to make your own ideas show.
Sorry i don’t buy that.
God bless
Catholicfriend
- Status
Sorry i don’t buy that.
God bless
Catholicfriend
S
scylla
Guest
We also believe that the Word incarnate created the Church. The Bible was then compliled by the Church which derives it’s authority to do so directly from Jesus.
The Bible was created to be used in the liturgy, not to base a Church off of. That is why the Church decided on which books were scripture, to be used in the liturgy.
How are you going to have a unified intepretation based on personal interpretation of the Bible? If two different interpretations are reached then does one of the people involved not have the Holy Spirit guiding them even if they think they do?
As for Christus Totus being unbiblical,wow I am pretty sure that is very Biblical and even evident before the idea of being Biblical came up, since people believed in the idea before the canon of Scripture was decided upon.
The real problem is that an evangelical cannot affirm it being biblical as it is contrary to the belief of an invisible Church. Since it is contrary to Evangelical understanding of the Bible then they cannot agree with it. But an honest understanding of the Bible cannot deny it, but just decide not to believe in it.
Here is a link
soma.npa.uiuc.edu/~dbranch/script_cath/BODY.HTM
One the one hand, to speak of Christ alone is to forget the whole Christ, for Christ united to the Church. One the other, to speak of the Church alone is also to forget the whole Christ, for the Church is united to Christ. Christ and his Church together are the Christus totus
drurywriting.com/john/Christus%20Totus%20and%20the%20Confessions.htm
It all depends on what glasses you look at the Bible through, like Steve Ray says, if you look at it from Evangelical glasses you wont see the same as a Baptist, or as a Lutheran.
God Bless
Scylla
The Bible was created to be used in the liturgy, not to base a Church off of. That is why the Church decided on which books were scripture, to be used in the liturgy.
How are you going to have a unified intepretation based on personal interpretation of the Bible? If two different interpretations are reached then does one of the people involved not have the Holy Spirit guiding them even if they think they do?
As for Christus Totus being unbiblical,wow I am pretty sure that is very Biblical and even evident before the idea of being Biblical came up, since people believed in the idea before the canon of Scripture was decided upon.
The real problem is that an evangelical cannot affirm it being biblical as it is contrary to the belief of an invisible Church. Since it is contrary to Evangelical understanding of the Bible then they cannot agree with it. But an honest understanding of the Bible cannot deny it, but just decide not to believe in it.
Here is a link
soma.npa.uiuc.edu/~dbranch/script_cath/BODY.HTM
One the one hand, to speak of Christ alone is to forget the whole Christ, for Christ united to the Church. One the other, to speak of the Church alone is also to forget the whole Christ, for the Church is united to Christ. Christ and his Church together are the Christus totus
drurywriting.com/john/Christus%20Totus%20and%20the%20Confessions.htm
It all depends on what glasses you look at the Bible through, like Steve Ray says, if you look at it from Evangelical glasses you wont see the same as a Baptist, or as a Lutheran.
God Bless
Scylla
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Did God create a people for himself through his own Word or not!?
Is that true or not, if not, i recommend you to read your bible again. And is Christ the fulfilment of the Law or not!?
Has Christ built his Church or not!? The Word Created the Church, not the other way around!.
God bless
Catholicfriend
C
Catilieth
Guest
And what was the Bible before the fourth century.? Only the Septagint. There was no New Testament before then…but there was a Catholic Church. Christ did not write any books…he did found a Church. He was very specific about it, and he himself gave that Church his own authority “He who hears you, hears me”. So that Church has authority imparted to it directly from God himself. It is by that authority that She compiled what is now called the New Testament. The New Testament has authority because the Church says so. There were many other writings used in the early Church, even during Mass, which were not included in the New Testament, especially those of Peter’s successors. The Church did not include those, not because they contained errors, but because She said that they were not divinely inspired.
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Please show me one Scripture to back that thought up.
‘not to go beyond what is written’
Read 1 Cor.4:6-7.
God bless Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Please do not forget that He is the Incarnate Word from the Beginning. He is the Word that created a people for himself, and built his church. The Bible (The Word of God Created the Church not the other way around). Sorry. Read your Bible.
Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
‘That old witch Reason’- Martin LutherPlease do not forget that He is the Incarnate Word from the Beginning. He is the Word that created a people for himself, and built his church. The Bible (The Word of God Created the Church not the other way around). Sorry. Read your Bible.
Catholicfriend
C
coyote
Guest
Catholicfriend,
You seem to be very angry. At what I can’t say. I think that you initiated this thread because you have an anti-Catholic agenda. The lenses before your eyes are smeared with this agenda and you can’t see past it. Are you asking that someone validate what you are asserting? Saying the same thing over and over again isn’t going to get you the response that you seem to want. It is not unusual to become emotionally insecure when confronting frustration. But, indulging in the escaltion of emotion only interferes with understanding. I am sure that as you continue to search for understanding it will come to you. But, you have to leave some doors ajar and some windows uncovered.
May God grace you with certainty.
You seem to be very angry. At what I can’t say. I think that you initiated this thread because you have an anti-Catholic agenda. The lenses before your eyes are smeared with this agenda and you can’t see past it. Are you asking that someone validate what you are asserting? Saying the same thing over and over again isn’t going to get you the response that you seem to want. It is not unusual to become emotionally insecure when confronting frustration. But, indulging in the escaltion of emotion only interferes with understanding. I am sure that as you continue to search for understanding it will come to you. But, you have to leave some doors ajar and some windows uncovered.
May God grace you with certainty.
C
Catilieth
Guest
I’ve read my Bible, thank you…and do not find what you are referring to at all. Show me what exactly you are referring to… and if it’s Paul’s quote to Timothy , then you yourself will have to disregard the entire New Testament, because he was very clearly referring **only ** to the Septagint. The New Testament had no yet been written!!! Jesus is the God/Man, he is not a book!!!Please do not forget that He is the Incarnate Word from the Beginning. He is the Word that created a people for himself, and built his church. The Bible (The Word of God Created the Church not the other way around). Sorry. Read your Bible.
Catholicfriend
S
scylla
Guest
You ask me for one scripture verse, there are many in that link I posted, do you want me to flood the thread with scripture verses? I was just trying to be efficient, make the thread easy to read and answer your question at the same time.
I would read Colossians 1:18-23, look at the links I posted, I see it all very clear. You do not have to agree as that is your right under the idea of Sola Scriptura.
I would not agree with your interpretation of going beyond what is written,(understanding it by looking only at those words) as that understanding would make me, in its most extreme sense, to only believe what is written to the point in time when Paul wrote that epistle. Or should I only believe what is written in the Old Testament, if I use that in context with 2 Timothy 3:15?
Or should I only believe in the Catholic Bible which includes more books, or would I have had to wait until Martin Luther to get a different version of the Bible to base my faith off of?
See there is my dillemma, in seeing logic in your conclusions, it is easy to come up with objections, but what is then the absolute truth? What is my alternative, from a cohesive belief, to one of the new understandings?
I would read that passage in context as to me it really seems to be saying something else. When I read this passage I see Paul writing to the Corinthians, talking about pride and division. Just as Jesus prayed for unity, so that we may be one.
God gave us reason, and intellect, to be used. I love the freedom I have in the Catholic Church to think, reason and grow in my faith and understanding. I have found that Catholicism embraces reason and mystery at the same time. There is no stress on understanding everything, but a constant belief in that there is truth, we first arrive by faith and hopefully understanding follows.
God Bless
Scylla
I would read Colossians 1:18-23, look at the links I posted, I see it all very clear. You do not have to agree as that is your right under the idea of Sola Scriptura.
I would not agree with your interpretation of going beyond what is written,(understanding it by looking only at those words) as that understanding would make me, in its most extreme sense, to only believe what is written to the point in time when Paul wrote that epistle. Or should I only believe what is written in the Old Testament, if I use that in context with 2 Timothy 3:15?
Or should I only believe in the Catholic Bible which includes more books, or would I have had to wait until Martin Luther to get a different version of the Bible to base my faith off of?
See there is my dillemma, in seeing logic in your conclusions, it is easy to come up with objections, but what is then the absolute truth? What is my alternative, from a cohesive belief, to one of the new understandings?
I would read that passage in context as to me it really seems to be saying something else. When I read this passage I see Paul writing to the Corinthians, talking about pride and division. Just as Jesus prayed for unity, so that we may be one.
God gave us reason, and intellect, to be used. I love the freedom I have in the Catholic Church to think, reason and grow in my faith and understanding. I have found that Catholicism embraces reason and mystery at the same time. There is no stress on understanding everything, but a constant belief in that there is truth, we first arrive by faith and hopefully understanding follows.
God Bless
Scylla
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Catholicfriend:
I’m sorry but your posts are no longer making any sense. Go out for a walk. Feel the breeze. Pray that God’s peace settle in your heart. Then come back and let’s go through all of what you think we misunderstand one by one. Okay?
in Christ.
I’m sorry but your posts are no longer making any sense. Go out for a walk. Feel the breeze. Pray that God’s peace settle in your heart. Then come back and let’s go through all of what you think we misunderstand one by one. Okay?
in Christ.
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Okey, Coyote. First, I’m not angry with anyone and i don’t have an “anti-catholic agenda” as you put it, but i have come to an conclusion that maybe needs some fine biasing. Emotional insecurity, you can’t relly mean that, can you?!? You don’t know me. But in some way you have come to do, by my way of expression myself in this thread. That i can understand, but that’s just my way, who needs some biasing, and you can’t really tell very much through that…maybe 25% about my personality.
Well, to this matter now. When things contradicts each other, like in the Eucharist, when Christ is offered over and over again in Catholic liturgy, the Bible clearly states in: Hebr.9:25 " Once for all", not repeatedly!. And how about 1Tim 3:15, you are using it to proclaim Church over Word, but the word bulwark or buttress in greek means support, not foundation. As some would say.
Isaiah 55:8-11, is another Word for explaining that God is at work through His Word. God, Christ built His Church and is continuing doing so ‘as we speak’. Do we believe in God’s revelation for us or not?! Did the church come up with that revelation?! or was it God through His Prophets(OT) and Apostles(NT)?!. Revelation outside the Bible(God’s Word) must be checked (or in line with) according to His Word, for God does not do anything outside His Word, because that is the only revelation we’ve got.
God bless
Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Sorry, if i’m not making any sense. I’ll do just what you’ve said! and come back later to discuss this matters.
We don’t want dead orthodoxy, do we?!
Peace in Christ
Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Okey Scylla, the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Church(the body), is it?! You’ve got me confused here. What is then the Kingdom of God Jesus is talking about. The Catholic church can not be serious about being the kingdom of God, because it is not! Just a part of it, catholic church is subordinate to the Word of God (like the rest of us) according to the Kingdom of God principle, in wich God has set forth for us to follow.Please show me one Scripture to back that thought up.
‘not to go beyond what is written’
Read 1 Cor.4:6-7.
God bless Catholicfriend
God bless
Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Okey Scylla, the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Church(the body), is it?! You’ve got me confused here.(with yor links) What is then the Kingdom of God Jesus is talking about. The Catholic church can not be serious about being the kingdom of God, because it is not! Just a part of it, catholic church is subordinate to the Word of God (like the rest of us) according to the Kingdom of God principle, in wich God has set forth for us to follow.
God bless
Catholicfriend
God bless
Catholicfriend
C
Catilieth
Guest
Hopefully to clear up what appears to be a little misunderstanding.
Christ is not being crucified over and over again at Mass. The Catholic understanding of time is a bit different from most of the rest of the world. Everything that ever was still exists, but it is not present to us in time because we move through time. It is a little like traveling on a train… we go by a city or town, and move by it. The town is no longer present to us, but still exists. God is outside of time, so all things are present to him always. His sacrifice at Calvary is ever before him…it is never not present.
At mass, the once and forever Sacrifice is made present on the altar…(an aside…the book of Revelation and the Catholic Mass are intimitely associated, one must understand the one to completely understand the other.). Heaven and earth come together at that point, and in a very real way, Calvary is with us and we are at Calvary. He is not re-sacrificed.
A
AquinasXVI
Guest
Catholicfriend:
Great to hear you’re 10 degrees cooler.
The Mass, Holy Eucharist and Holy Bible.
Christ being true God and true man symphonically operates in historical time and in eternity. Therefore when he instituted the Holy Eucharist at the last supper and establishing the "new and everlasting covenant’ he said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. So repetition of this is his will. The humanity of Christ allowed him to offer his flesh to be the paschal lamb to be sacrificed and eaten and the divinity of Christ allows this to be re-presented through time and in different places.
When he met up with the disciples walking to Emmaus, he “opened up the scriptures to them” and then they asked him to stay and he broke the bread after he blessed it and disappeared from their sight. This is the Mass. Entrance, Readings from the OT, Psalm, Reading from the NT, then the Gospel. After the gospel is the Lit. of The Eucharist.
So, in the Acts we already see the essential order of celebrating his new covenant.
Our beloved protestant brothers and sisters believe in Bible Alone. This is not biblical. The bible does not self authenticate. In Timothy, Paul writes that the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH IS THE CHURCH.
The church assembled the old and new testament in the 4th c.
If the Catholic church is not the true church that Christ established–the bible cannot be the true word of God either. As Kreeft says: How do you squeeze infallble bible juice out of a fallable Catholic orange?
Sadly, in the Reformation some of the books were thrown out by Luther I believe. That’s why Sirach, Tobit and Co. are missing from the protestant bibles. If there’s no Christ established authority, then I in 2005 can go ahead and remove as many books in the bible as I see fit. Why stop there, why don’t I add more books there while I’m at it.
in Xt.
Great to hear you’re 10 degrees cooler.
The Mass, Holy Eucharist and Holy Bible.
Christ being true God and true man symphonically operates in historical time and in eternity. Therefore when he instituted the Holy Eucharist at the last supper and establishing the "new and everlasting covenant’ he said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. So repetition of this is his will. The humanity of Christ allowed him to offer his flesh to be the paschal lamb to be sacrificed and eaten and the divinity of Christ allows this to be re-presented through time and in different places.
When he met up with the disciples walking to Emmaus, he “opened up the scriptures to them” and then they asked him to stay and he broke the bread after he blessed it and disappeared from their sight. This is the Mass. Entrance, Readings from the OT, Psalm, Reading from the NT, then the Gospel. After the gospel is the Lit. of The Eucharist.
So, in the Acts we already see the essential order of celebrating his new covenant.
Our beloved protestant brothers and sisters believe in Bible Alone. This is not biblical. The bible does not self authenticate. In Timothy, Paul writes that the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH IS THE CHURCH.
The church assembled the old and new testament in the 4th c.
If the Catholic church is not the true church that Christ established–the bible cannot be the true word of God either. As Kreeft says: How do you squeeze infallble bible juice out of a fallable Catholic orange?
Sadly, in the Reformation some of the books were thrown out by Luther I believe. That’s why Sirach, Tobit and Co. are missing from the protestant bibles. If there’s no Christ established authority, then I in 2005 can go ahead and remove as many books in the bible as I see fit. Why stop there, why don’t I add more books there while I’m at it.
in Xt.
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Well, hello there. That’s almost very clear, but if it is like this, and i have always believed it to be like this, so i don’t see what the misunderstanding contains in on my behalf. Because Karl Keating is saying in his book; “What Catholics really believe”:“The sad fact is that most Catholics, of all ages, are so poorly cathechized that they can’t explain to other Christians very much about their own faith. This shows especially in their discussion of the Mass. Their thinking is so hazy that they unknowingly concur with fundamentalist opponents of the Church”…and he goes on and shows some scriptures and explaining the Mass liturgy. Why can’t everybody do it like this ?! You avoid so much misunderstanding, by explaining the text easily. I’m lighter than i was before. Thank you. Karl Keating is very good at explaining and clearing out misunderstandings, more of those guys and we probably wouldn’t have wars!
God bless
Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Well, hello there. That’s almost very clear, but if it is like this, and i have always believed it to be like this, so i don’t see what the misunderstanding contains in on my behalf. Because Karl Keating is saying in his book; “What Catholics really believe”:“The sad fact is that most Catholics, of all ages, are so poorly cathechized that they can’t explain to other Christians very much about their own faith. This shows especially in their discussion of the Mass. Their thinking is so hazy that they unknowingly concur with fundamentalist opponents of the Church”…and he goes on and shows some scriptures and explaining the Mass liturgy. Why can’t everybody do it like this ?! You avoid so much misunderstanding, by explaining the text easily. I’m lighter than i was before. Thank you. Karl Keating is very good at explaining and clearing out misunderstandings, more of those guys and we probably wouldn’t have wars!
God bless
Catholicfriend
C
Catholicfriend
Guest
Catholicfriend:
Great to hear you’re 10 degrees cooler.
The Mass, Holy Eucharist and Holy Bible.
Christ being true God and true man symphonically operates in historical time and in eternity. Therefore when he instituted the Holy Eucharist at the last supper and establishing the "new and everlasting covenant’ he said DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME. So repetition of this is his will. The humanity of Christ allowed him to offer his flesh to be the paschal lamb to be sacrificed and eaten and the divinity of Christ allows this to be re-presented through time and in different places.
When he met up with the disciples walking to Emmaus, he “opened up the scriptures to them” and then they asked him to stay and he broke the bread after he blessed it and disappeared from their sight. This is the Mass. Entrance, Readings from the OT, Psalm, Reading from the NT, then the Gospel. After the gospel is the Lit. of The Eucharist.
So, in the Acts we already see the essential order of celebrating his new covenant.
Well, hello there. That’s almost very clear, but if it is like this, and i have always believed it to be like this, so i don’t see what the misunderstanding contains in on my behalf. Because Karl Keating is saying in his book; “What Catholics really believe”:“The sad fact is that most Catholics, of all ages, are so poorly cathechized that they can’t explain to other Christians very much about their own faith. This shows especially in their discussion of the Mass. Their thinking is so hazy that they unknowingly concur with fundamentalist opponents of the Church”…and he goes on and shows some scriptures and explaining the Mass liturgy. Why can’t everybody do it like this ?! You avoid so much misunderstanding, by explaining the text easily. I’m lighter than i was before. Thank you. Karl Keating is very good at explaining and clearing out misunderstandings, more of those guys and we probably wouldn’t have wars!
Our beloved protestant brothers and sisters believe in Bible Alone. This is not biblical. The bible does not self authenticate. In Timothy, Paul writes that the PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF TRUTH IS THE CHURCH.
No, i don’t know what Bible you’re reading from, but the text in greek does not say ;Foundation, it says: bulwark or buttress,
or support NOT foundation! The church is to be a support for The Word (Truth), not it’s foundation CHRIST ALREADY IS THAT FOUNDATION! SORRY, I DON’T BUY THAT!
GOD BLESS
CATHOLICFRIEND
The church assembled the old and new testament in the 4th c.
If the Catholic church is not the true church that Christ established–the bible cannot be the true word of God either. As Kreeft says: How do you squeeze infallble bible juice out of a fallable Catholic orange?
Sadly, in the Reformation some of the books were thrown out by Luther I believe. That’s why Sirach, Tobit and Co. are missing from the protestant bibles. If there’s no Christ established authority, then I in 2005 can go ahead and remove as many books in the bible as I see fit. Why stop there, why don’t I add more books there while I’m at it.
in Xt.
- Status