The problem is that there is no speech, i.e. no forgiveness of sins, without the lungs, and the lungs are human.
That is true, Protestant. However, Jesus very clearly delegates this authority to His human ambassadors of reconciliation. Otherwise, you’d have to explain away John 20:23… which, unfortunately, many Protestants seem to be experts at.
There aren’t. It goes the other way. People leave Catholicsm largely because they are ignorant of the faith. Devout Catholics rarely leave. Most people who are baptized Catholic that leave are LOOKING for a more “devout” (authentic spiritual expereince).
Not sure what a"system" you refer to here.
Yes, it was simplier. The more heresies arose, the more defining of the faith was needed.
This is a simplified and inaccruate reflection of the problem of Easter. However, I agree, that the unity Christ wants to does suffer many wounds.
There are thousands of divisions. If you don’t realize this,t hen you have not studied the splintering caused after the Reformation.
I agree, but the unity of the Church comes from adherance to the Truth. The gift of infallibilty belongs to the Church, not the individual. Individuals can benefit from it to the extent that we remain in unity with Truth.
I’m fraid you lost me here David. Were you quoting someone else here?
God does use the ungodly toward His purpose. But His chose to reveal His Truth through the One Church He established prior to His ascention.
Yes ,you did not say authority of scripture as the culprit rather full reliance on it or Sola Scriptura.
I think you may have misunderstood the footnote, David. It is a reference to her passing from this life. There has never been an official definition on whther or not she died, or was taken up. In the East, her passing is referred to as “dormition”, because the Church has always believed she was taken, body and soul, by her beloved Son.
OK, then let’s leave the CC out of it for the moment. I ask again, and if you don’t want to answer the question, that’s cool:
This is a good point. It has been a problem throughout the history of the Church. Some people confuse Sacred Tradtiion with customs, and it does cause divisions (power struggling over it). Some of the worst of them are between the East and West, where bickering had nothing to do with doctrine, but just customs, like clothing, hair, beards, etc. Human beings can be so myopic at times.
The all Holy nature of Mary has always been a doctrine of the faith, though you are right, it is celebrated differently in different cultures.
This is true, but to be understood with some nuance.
Yes, we can see in the NT there have been “differing ideas” from the beginning.And, to the extent that these were divergent from the One Faith, they were considered heresies.
It always boils down to authority, does it not?
There are a couple problems with this. One is that no 'warrant" is necessary. Peter was appointed by Christ, and served in his role for almost 20 years before the first books of the NT even began to be written. And the reason there was no need to emphasize the meaning of that scripture prior to the 3rd century is because no one ever questioned the primacy of the role of the successor of Peter.
Yes, but Peter was given some gifts and duties that were not given to others.
The inerrancy of the Church is not based upon interpretation of anything, but upon her Divine elements. She has as her Head the Lord Jesus, and the HS as her Soul. It is these divine elements that make her infallible.
To the extent Protestants depart from the Apostolic faith, the dogma is self serving. During the Reformation, they separated from the Catholic Church in an effort to develop a more pure religion. They were disgusted by the practices of corrupt Catholic Clergy and wanted a faith that reflected the fruits that pure faith should produce. The developed dogmas they believed would produce that, such as SS.
Well, we read them differently, don’t we? The succession was well underway already by that time. The “plan of succession” is part of the Sacred Tradition.
No, Paul was writing about Sacred Tradition. Surely you dont’ think he was commanding the following of human customs, do you?
There is no need to go round and round. Once a person accepts what was handed down by the Apostles, it is very simple.
More importantly, does your God contradict what He already revealed "once for all " to the saints?
I agree. Concepts were redefined, and some were jettisoned all together. A new form of “divine revelation” was crafted to meet the needs of the time.
Where in the Scripture does it say that the Authority Christ gave to the Church ceased when part of it was written down? Where does it say that what is written in scripture about the Apostolic succession would no longer be valid after the NT was written?
Well, it isn’t “my” order, it is His. He is the one who set it up to work that way.
Such a statement rests upon a deficient definition off the Church.
Had you considered who those letters are addressed to?
A quick story .A young Chinamen when to the old sage and said ," I want to know truth". The sage took him to a nearby river, and they waded in . The sage then took the young lad and held him under water , and continued to do so . The young lad held out as long as he could and after a fierce struggle, was allowed up , desperately gasping for air. The wise man asked ,"What is it that you wanted when I continued to hold you under ? " The young lad answered, "Just one thing finally. I wanted AIR ! " .“Good ! Now, when you want truth the same way, you shall find it”, said the sage.I started a thread with the hopes of correctly representing SS, but there doesn’t seem to be one definition of SS. So, the HS guides you to believe one thing about confession and me to believe the exact opposite?
I want to know the truth from the spirit of truth (the HS). How can I ascertain the truth about this teaching?
Well, plenty of customs were eradicated. We see plenty of evidence in the NT how Jewish customs were not applied to Gentiles.
I am not sure I understand this question. Sacred Tradition, along with Sacred Scripture are considered One Deposit of Faith…
Well, we don’t have a written record of that teaching but Scripture was never intended to include everything in the first place. We don’t have a record of what Paul taught for 2 years at the temple of Tyrannus, either, but clearly he did.
On the contrary, it is contained in virutally all the liturgies and prayers of every community founded by an Apostle.
Fortunately no one but you are bound by your own “classifications”.
Just quicky it’s late --you deserve better but A church can start out on fire and grow cold ,and many other scenarios .read the Letters to the seven churches in revelations.As you must know , this is not a problem to protestants. The church began well , kept some things well ,changed a few things , added a few things , with voices of reform at most every step .Reform is perfect example of Christ keeping his promise to be with us to the end. But the seven churches is a good start.I am really attempting to understand things from your perspective Dave.
So, from the point of view of each respective church, in the world today, they too are right, in my opinion, which means no one is wrong, and yet truth remains elusive regarding certain doctrinal beliefs, such as the sacrament of confession. From that perspective, (the holy spirit guides each respective church) - it does not sound like Jesus left the world with a universal way for all Christians, regardless of denomination, to know the truth regarding certain teachings, such as confession or the Eucharist. Is that a believable assessment?
Do you agree with the following:
As a former non-Catholic, I eventually learned the canon of Scripture was determined by the CC councils, which it included the Deuterocanonicals.
The CC via council, defined the 2 Natures of Christ: dogmatized in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. Further controversies over whether Christ had one of two wills ensued, and this went on for a few centuries more.
The CC via council, defined original sin, which is not found in scripture: this was finalized in dogma so late that it wasn’t even part of the Nicene Creed; the ECF’s wrote much more about purgatory than original sin.
Most non-Catholics embrace the preceding 3 teachings. Why trust that the CC, via council got it right about them and disbelieve that the CC got it right about things such as purgatory and the sacrament of confession?
I am not trying to be slippery; I am just looking for a viable answer. These are simply questions that bothered me long ago.
He will not “enlighten” an individual contrary to what He has already revealed to the Church.
Yes. That and a seared conscience and a culture of death.
The good news is that indeed that you and I know they are wrong because of scripture, revealed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit. They may have scripture , but not an unction from the Holy Ghost . It has nothing to do with aspiring to scripture as authoratative.That they misuse scripture ,does not taint scripture.
No one. God is His own interpreter, thru the Holy Spirit. He talks to us .Are we not spiritual beings ? Did He not walk and talk with Adam in the garden ? Did Adam need an interpreter ? Do we not have the same because of the second Adam and Eve ,in Christ, the same privelege and phenomenem ? Of talking with Him ? Is not this in our tradition and bibles ? Can you imagine , God speaks to you and you say , no, no don’t speak to me but tell it to me thru Peter and or His successor. To make sure you are not off your rocker , The Holy Spirit will confirm with His written Word.
