J
Jermosh
Guest
I am not them, I do not know their heart, only God knows that.
- Status
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
So you are telling me that you cannot come up with even one reference that demonstrates an essential doctrine taught by the apostles that is not recorded in Scripture? Do you know why you can’t, because there aren’t any. The apostolic tradition you so broadly describe is so intertwined with Scripture one could scarcely tell them apart.
Your rhetoric displays your lack of knowledge, and your boldness is beyond comprehension. Thank you for affirming, at least with your limited knowledge, the lack of historical evidence in support of your believe.
BTW, You might want to stop pointing the finger at others when you yourself lack such understanding.
R
rinnie
Guest
I didn’t ask you what was in their heart, and I did not ask you what God’s judgement was not did I. Please go back and read the question again.
If you cannot answer it or understand it, let me ask in a different way.
If a person turns to sin, and refuses to quit that sin is his soul in mortal danger?
R
rinnie
Guest
I think what he is trying to tell you, and that you cannot understand is not all is written in scripture. But if it is Tradition it cannot contradict scripture.
My Challange to you is this. How can you rely on the CC for Canon of Scripture and not rely on the Church for Canon of Tradiiton. I mean the church either tells the truth or it does not, How can you accept one without the other?
Scripture itself tells you the the Church will never fail. Matt 6:18 and the scripture itself tells you to listen to the church it is the Pillar of Truth 1Tim 3:15
And you are correct and no one would ever deny that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. What we are trying to tell you one without the other is impossible. You cannot understand SS without ST to explain it.
And one thing I would like to tell you we do not need SS. We have the Church, as long as we need the church we have all we need. The Church is the teacher and foundation of all truth! We read it yes, and it is a good thing to do, but where does it say we need the bible to make it to heaven. It does not. It says the Church saves you not the bible.
A
aspirant
Guest
We can say that if a person does something gravely wrong with full knowledge and deliberate consent, the sin is mortal.
What we cannot do is actually discern with certainty whether and to what extent these things actually apply in the particular case of a person other than ourselves, even if that person provides us a lot of interior information we would have no other way of knowing.
We can often discern when another’s actions are wrong (e.g. “person X took something that did not belong to him”). It becomes much, much sketchier when we try to discern that person’s culpability. It is dangerous ground to tread, and with many sins we don’t need to try. It’s our own culpability, about which we have much better information, that we should primarily focus on.
Even our own culpability is something we cannot be 100% certain regarding, as the Catechism points out. Fortunately, God is not a monster and he knows when we repent and confess in good faith.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
See No Evil, Hear no Evil?
Nor are Christians called to take refuge in a mindless abandonment of conscience or to liberal naivity to duck our responsibility and adapt a neutral “see no evil, hear no evil…” pandering mindset. We participate in the sins of others when we fail to warn others against sinful conduct or false beleifs that are harmful to their eternal soul.. Guess what? Our responsibility to each other as members of the human race means we are REQUIRED to prudentially judge the outward appearance of behavior and speak out (without presuming upon the guilt or the motive of a soul). But can’t liberalize the teaching on “do not judge” to take it to mean we have no responsibility to try to educate or dissuade illicit behavior.
Let me add a few more teachings that apply here:
Catholic Catechism:
James
A
aspirant
Guest
It appears you did not understand any of the actual content of my post. Too bad. Maybe you will reread it at some future date and there can be actual conversation.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Listen, I have been given you a lot of information and answering a lot of your questions and when I do all you want to do is make more charges and send me down rabbit holes to occupy my time with more rhetorical questions while complaining about what I I give you.
You have yet to answer any of my questions. I asked you for a ECF historical basis for sola scriptura that does not use sacred tradtion as a means to interpret scripture to ratify your own beliefs. You blew it off since you were unable to give a shred of evidence. All you did was duck behind a smokescreen of more questions in a rope-a-dope tactic. Now you accuse me of rhetoric? You start doing some work and stop shooting from the hip and give evidence other than personal opinion. Make your case if you can remember what it was you wanted to know after running away in circles. It’s time to defend YOUR faith with substance not mere words and accusations.
There are generally 418 infallable* de fide definita* (“of Faith,”) (along with some sententia certa) beliefs in the Catholic faith. De Fide beliefs are required beliefs of the full Catholic Faith – but more proper in context are “gifts” of handed down truth to the faithful to embrace. Here is a convenient reference to them: Summary of Dogmas of the Catholic Faith
You will see from the list that many of these are easily traceable from specific few bible verses but others are truths that come through a deeper holistic study and revelation. Things like the Trinity were not explicitly taught by the apostles but the concepts were present in the day. Admittedly many of these de fide beliefs may not have direct practical application to all Christians (for example details of God’s essense & His attributes) but are nonetheless truths that a deeply spiritual person or theologian can take in complete confidence as “Truth” in perfecting themselves in spiritual advancement or in teaching the faith; or form the basis for answering difficult future questions about Christian faith or morality (e.g. bio-engineering, artificial insemination etc.). Many of these teachings arrive to us as a correction to erroneous scripture interpretation by heretics. This is a very important thing to understand. The Church does not just come up with an arbitrary list of De Fide teachings - these are in essence manifest by Divine Providence where God reveals deeper dimensions of His Truth through the errors of heretical men. So God is using human error to perfect His Church and teach us progressively more about Himself. In essense sola scriptura devoid of apostolic tradition is where heresy comes from (disobedience to church authority) and is the wellspring of error and correction.
Protestants who formalized and greatly perfected the heresy of sola scriptura have single handily caused the Church to teach more infallable proclamations viz the corrective anathema than perhaps all prior heretics on the planet ever have. Protestant error has possibly matured the Catholic Faith and blessed us with more depth of theology and certainty than most people can comprehend. God thus uses human error and His enemies to advance His Church toward perfection. I personally see Protestant theologians as one of the most useful critics to true Christianity that history has ever produced. They are even better at sharpening Catholic intellect and teaching than even the most intellectual Atheists since they hit scripture from so many of the most unnatural and unorthodox angles to try to make their system of belief work. But it all unravels and fails since Truth is fragile and can not be bent in anyway and stand up. Catholics are forced to look at scripture in all new ways and in correcting Protestants we discover deper truths and nuances we might not have gotten without their adversarial attacks against the faith.
==
SO YES!! You are very correct that The Apostolic Tradition I *“so broadly describe is so intertwined with Scripture one could scarcely tell them apart.” * But the part you completely fail to grasp is that scripture can NOT be useful without Sacred-Tradition and the apostolic authority to teach it (what we call the magisterium). As well, there is MORE, MUCH MORE in sacred tradtion that is integral with Catholic Faith. While the Catholic Faith is 100% scriptural it also has all its liturgy, prayers, rubrics, hymns, etc. that bring one into a complete familial relationship with God. The Church is considered mystical with a real divine soul The Holy Spirit. The Church is not a mere location with bricks and mortar but it is that as well as a mystical entity that can place itself outside of time and space.
You charged me with “rhetoric and boldness” after I took considerable time to give you pages of historical evidence and explanation. You counter with no substance of your own and empty words and empty charges. It is you sir who are playing the rhetoric game and have no knowledge of history. You have yet to present a case with forensic evidence to back it that you got anything worthwhile out of your alleged 10 years of study. Where’s the beef?
Put up or kindly go back to your seat; and maybe try taking notes as study points in your next assault against reason and truth.
James
B
Brian_Culliton
Guest
No, I do understand what James said and I am quite familiar with the Catholic point of view. I responded as I did because we are walking a fine line between being on topic and being off. I understand and appreciate the rules regarding veering off topic and so I want to be careful. I want to respond to your challenge too, but first I need to preface it with why it is relevant to the topic.
The OP provided quotes from authoritative Catholic sources that seem to indicate that Catholics believe no one outside the Catholic Church, unless excused by inculpable ignorance, will be saved. So my challenge is simple; by what authority do they make this claim? The Gospel makes clear what we need to be saved, nowhere do I read about needing to be obedient to a hierarchy of men. And if Catholics cannot demonstrate that such an authority was established and practiced in the ancient church, they have nothing to say about it; they’re simply issuing their opinion. And any Catholic brazen enough to judge another as those in the OP’s quotes did, they bring that judgment upon themselves.
The answer is I do not rely on the CC for the canon of Scripture or for apostolic tradition; I know the history of both. And in light of that history, the Catholic Church does not tell the truth.
And what is the pillar and base of the Church? Irenaeus, a second century bishop of Lyons, said it is the Gospel. So according to him, the truth is in the church and the church is built upon the Gospel. The Gospel declares Christ the Lord as truth, and all who belong to Him are built upon this sure foundation Irenaeus speaks of; or as Paul said it, “No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (Eph. 3:11)
The difference is not in our interpretation of Scripture; it is in our definition of “church.” Yours admits it is not built upon the foundation of Christ, but Peter the apostle.
Why is it impossible for some to read or hear the Gospel, believe and be saved? Can you answer that please?
What says the church saves you, the Bible? It doesn’t say anywhere that you need the Bible to make it to heaven, but it is the Bible that tells you how going to heaven is possible. So again, why, in your opinion, can’t a person read the Gospel, believe and be saved?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Why can’t a perosn read the Gospel, believe and be saved?
Because salvation is not a sole function of sola fide - or mere belief. This very question demonstrates in spades why you can’t separate Sacred Tradition from the Bible since if you read the bible and concluded that all one must do is “believe” then you are admitting to error. The bible says a lot more and one of those things is to partake of the bread of life so you may have life in you and only the Church has the ecclesial and spiritual authority to confect the Eucharist. It also says one must be baptised - again this is somthing that is normatively done by The Church (but admittedly can be done by anyone who has the right intention but the bible does tell you this aspect). The Bible also tells us to go to the Church for resolution of questions. The Bible also tells us to conform to the TEACHING TRADITIONS which are seperate from the bible.
So this is a mere canard - and is pre-assumptive on a sola fide false teaching which the bible also rejects. It’s a pretty straight-forward progression of logic to see if the bible points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth then the bible is calling to its mother as the higher co-joined authority and as the context for its voice.
All that said - a person can get inspiration for the faith by reading the bible. And the Church has told us even some of these can gain salvation by desire (but the bible does not tell us that) if they can’t become formal members due to circumstances.
The bottom line is the bible is inseparable from The Church and its teaching authority. The Bible is a mere instrument in service to the Church - not the other way around.
James
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Good day, Brian!
In the quote that you provided, Justin is referring to the prayers offered up at Mass in connection with the “solid and liquid food” of the Eucharist. The prayers are made pleasing and become a sacrifice because they are offered up with and in the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Earlier in this same chapter Justin wrote,
“God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him” (, Ch. 117Dialogue with Trypho).
And in Chapter 70, Justin quotes from Isaiah 33 and says that “it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks” (, Ch. 70Dialogue with Trypho).
It is in the celebration of the Mass that the sacrifices of prayer and thanksgiving find their efficacy, when they are offered in the “Eucharist of the bread and the cup.” In his First Apology he writes,
“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, 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” (, Ch. 66First Apology).
The Eucharist is consecrated “by the prayer of His word,” and by this means becomes “the flesh and blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh.” When we offer the Eucharist, we pray and give thanks, just as Jesus did, and in this way our prayers and thanksgivings become pleasing sacrifices in the perfect sacrifice of Christ.
In Chapter 41 of his Dialogue with Trypho, he refers to Malachi again:
“God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it’ (Malachi 1:10-12). [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]” (, Ch. 41Dialogue with Trypho).
Here we see that the bread and cup of the Eucharist are themselves the sacrifices being offered. And these are the sacrifices that make us “worthy men,” able to offer “prayers and giving of thanks” as “perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.” This is why “such alone Christians have undertaken to offer”; because “no one is allowed to partake [of the Eucharist] 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.”
Your brother in the Lord,
Pete
S
StrugglingGrad
Guest
I dont believe Catholics think anyone is going to hell. They understand not everyone is perfect. 
K
KC91
Guest
Well there are many good Protestants who may go to heaven but there are also many fundamentalist Protestants who may go to hell for their anti-Catholic activism.
R
rinnie
Guest
Now I disagree with you there. For a Catholic to say they do not believe that ANYONE is going to hell goes against scripture. They would be denying that hell exists. So we can’t say that.I dont believe Catholics think anyone is going to hell. They understand not everyone is perfect.
But we can and must say that we do not have the authority to claim who is and who is not. We can stand up for our faith though, and confront sin. But we cannot judge others.
Like to say living in sin is a sin. Well yes it is. We cannot deny that. And can living in sin separate you from God, Yes it can. Can we say to someone you are separted from God? No we cannot not. We can just say that it is a sin.
I told my kids this. It is wrong, and by doing it you are putting your soul in grave danger and are separating yourself from God. That is all I could do. Then pray that they would do the right thing and be married in the Church and respect the Sacrament of marriage.
All we can do as Christians is point out what if accepted by God, and what is not. We are to help eachother not judge. There is a big difference.
T
Tomster
Guest
Perhaps we can up with a definition of Protestantism? Allow me to give you one.
If we would define Protestantism by a short formula, we might call it subjective Christianity, whose positive contents are derived from Catholicism and whose radical error is a denial that faith belongs essentially to the intellect.
All that we know of Protestant culture points to its heavy emphasis on the subjective side of the Christian religion. Different churches had different orientations, but the general trend was the same. The “out-going” Catholic ritual centered in the Mass and directed to God was replaced by th "in-taking of the sermon for the people; the external forms of worship were removed in favor of internal meditation; interest in the apostolate became an exclusive concern for one’s own destiny; doing good for others under the counsels turned into preoccupation with sin and the assurance that a believer was one of the saved. Where Catholicism made obedience to ecclesiastical authority one of the marks of a Christian, the Reformers assured their disciples that no society, however ancient and professedly divine, has a right to stand between the soul and her Creator. Where Catholic theology insisted on good works, and the practice of virtue and mortification, Protestants were told to rely entirely on faith; and where the Church required the sacraments as a condition for grace, the Reformation dispensed with these ordinances, even with Baptism, as a means for salvation.
But if Protestantism were sustained by subjectivism or negative elements only, it would have passed out of history long ago. It has positive and objective features, too, which are not properly its own but borrowed or derived from the Catholic religion. Mysteries of faith like the Incaration and the Redemption, principles of Christian morality and methods of church government, ritual customs, forms of worship and even a Catholic vocabulary have entered the stream of Protestantism to give whatever vitality the inheritors of the Reformation still possess after centuries of separation from their common source.
The dependence on the Catholic Church is too widespread and universal to be fully analyzed. It is more than historical, and envelopes the sectarian bodies like an atmosphere. When someone described Protestantism as “a kind of parasite living upon the Church, one that would die should the Church die, one also that draws all its nutriment from the Church,” he was crude. But the principle he expressed is true.
T
Tomster
Guest
T
Tomster
Guest
A salvation which is secured by believing that we are saved, and a Bible interpreted to suit its reader, has led Protestants to regard even Protestant churches as irrelevant to salvation, although they continue to be gathering places for hearing the Word, Sunday school classes, Bible study, and the all important fellowship
Why all important? The severance from and repudiation of the Church, tantamount to throwing the divine plan for our spiritual and social needs back in Christ’s face, breeds the terrifying, subterranean loneliness which characterizes the world of the Protestant. He inhabits a desolate terrain, resembling the site of some colossal explosion. Each soul is isolated from every other. Each believer holds a set of beliefs differing in particulars from every other set of beliefs held by every other believer even in the same sect, and often differing even from that which he believed only yesterday. Held, in the main, only by strong social ties, but dissatisfied inside, he may go to this “denomination” this week, and to that next week, or perhaps nowhere, until, maybe next year, when he hears of some new doctrine, some new preacher. He is unable to conceive of the unchanging nature of Catholicism, because it is outside his experience. He can never feel that he is part of something larger than himself, because inexorable Protestant imperatives ensure that there IS nothing larger than himself.
P
paul_c
Guest
this is one very apocalyptic view of Protestantism. The first statement alone should be enough to give someone pause: “Salvation secured by believing you are saved!” That really, really brings home the emptiness of the promise
T
Tomster
Guest
Martin Luther professed a pious fear of committing the sin of presumption, defined as “an unfounded expectation of gaining salvation or the means of obtaining it; an exaggerated reliance upon means of salvation which are contrary to or other than those willed by God. It follows upon pride and leads one to expect certain favors.” The system of salvation taught by Luther’s new religion conforms exactly to this definition.
P
paul_c
Guest
I think of Martin Luther a little differently, although to be sure I am not an expert on his life or his theology. What impressed me in my reading on him was that he was very concerned that he was a sinful man. His ultimate response was to create a theology where sin didn’t matter - the famous sola fide priniciple where faith is all that is required. In fact, he famously recommended in one of his letters to Sin boldly, trusting in the lord’s forgiveness. This to me is Satan’s most effective Lie: “Don’t worry about sin, just trust in the Lord.” It has all the markings of piety, while discounting the one thing that is required of us: to do God’s will.
- Status