P
PRmerger
Guest
Why does He need to have something declared “in Person” for you to embrace it and believe it?
- Status
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
I don’t understand how your question is relevant to the question I askedWhy does He need to have something declared “in Person” for you to embrace it and believe it?
. First, your question asserts that I don’t believe in seven sacraments. Second, I don’t have an answer to my question. steveVH stated that Christ established seven sacraments Himself. My question was, where is it said that He did, because I want to learn more. jonNC responed and quoted vers(es) of the Gospel of John chapter 20, but I don’t see how you derive from that Jesus establishing seven sacraments. How did the seven sacraments come into existence?
P
PRmerger
Guest
The 7 Sacraments came into existence through Christ and His Body, the Catholic Church.I don’t understand how your question is relevant to the question I asked
They came into existence in the same way that the Bible came to be–through Christ and His Body, the Catholic Church.
If one rejects the 7 Sacraments because Christ Himself did not say, “I declare there are now 7 sacraments!” then one must, by logic and reason and consistency, also reject the Holy Bible, because Christ Himself did not say, “I declare that there is to be 27 book New Testament!”
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
I am sorry for mispresenting you then. I see you are a Lutheran. Do Lutherans believe in seven sacraments? And if not, why not?
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
Thanks for the answer, much appreciated. So is it your personal position that Jesus did not establish these sacraments while He was on earth, but that He did so through the Church? Is it also a part of Holy Tradition and official Church Teaching?
Greetings
D
dronald
Guest
Do Roman Catholics know they’re not Roman?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Jesus did establish the 7 sacraments, and we know this through the Church.
My question for you: did Jesus establish a 27 book New Testament?
Back at 'cha!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Some do.
Some don’t.
(Assuming you’re actually asking: do Roman Catholics know that the Roman rite AKA the Latin rite is only one of dozens of rites?
Because Roman Catholics are actually, um, Roman, in the sense that we are actually part of the Roman rite. Which makes us Roman. So if that’s what you mean, your question above becomes meaningless.)
D
dronald
Guest
I’m glad you see both these questions as meaningless. They’re names that are given to us; whatever, they’re meaningless.
I’m not protesting anything.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t see your question as meaningless.
I AM Roman. It distinguishes me from Chaldean. Or from Ruthenian. Or from Carthusian.
It may be important to use the label Roman Catholic, depending upon the context of the discussion.
Your point, therefore, is refuted.
You aren’t protesting anything, now, but your ecclesial forefathers were. And therefore, you are part of the church which protested my Church.
D
dronald
Guest
The question asked if we know what we are protesting, and we’re not protesting anything as you’ve admitted.
Protestant is a label, just like Roman Catholic is a label falsely attributed to all of Catholicism. The first reformers never sought to be called “protestant” or much less “lutheran” so it’s odd to ask us if we know what we’re protesting.
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
I don’t knowJesus did establish the 7 sacraments, and we know this through the Church.
My question for you: did Jesus establish a 27 book New Testament?
Back at 'cha!
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
What do you think? I think it is safe to say that Jesus intended the apostles writings that we have today.Jesus did establish the 7 sacraments, and we know this through the Church.
My question for you: did Jesus establish a 27 book New Testament?
Back at 'cha!
P
pablope
Guest
No…no NT writing ever intimated Jesus intending to have them write something.
From Luke 10: 16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
He did not say…he who reads.
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
From Chapter 3:
Our Blessed Lord Himself never, so far as we know, wrote a line of Scripture—certainly none that has been preserved. He never told His Apostles to write anything. He did not command them to commit to writing what He had delivered to them: but He said, ‘Go ye and teach all nations’, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ , ‘He that heareth you heareth Me’. What He commanded and meant them to do was precisely what He had done Himself, viz.—deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice—convince , persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face to living men and women; not intrust their message to a dead book which might perish and be destroyed, and be misunderstood and misinterpreted and corrupted, but adopt the more safe and natural way of presenting the truth to them by word of mouth, and of training others to do the same after they themselves were gone, and so by a living tradition, preserving and handing down the Word of God as they had received it, to all generations.
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
Okay, so even though Jesus did not intend that we should have scriptures (NT), we do have them? Would it not have been best then if the Church just hid the books from public. Would be the most effective way to make sure no one would read a, you called it a dead book?, and to prevent heresies from spreading. Oh my I should have been born thousands of years ago haha
.
D
dronald
Guest
This can’t be true unless you have any specific words of Jesus that Catholics believe Jesus actually said, which aren’t in the Bible.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Do you know of any words that aren’t in the Bible?
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
Okay, so even though Jesus did not intend that we should have scriptures (NT), we do have them?
From Chapter 3:
3. I have said that the Apostles at first never thought of writing the New Testament; and neither they did. The books of the New Testament were produced and called forth by special circumstances that arose, were written to meet particular demands and emergencies. Nothing was further from the minds of the Apostles and Evangelists than the idea of composing works which should be collected and formed into one volume, and so constitute the Holy Book of the Christians.
And we can imagine St Paul staring in amazement if he had been told that his Epistles, and St Peter’s and St. John’s, and the others would be tied up together and elevated into the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, to be placed in each man’s hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them. No one would have been more shocked at the idea of his letters usurping the place of the authoritative teacher—the Church, than the great Apostle who himself said, ‘How shall they hear without a preacher? how shall they preach unless they be sent? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ.’ The fact is that no religion yet known has been effectually propagated among men except by word of mouth, and certainly everything in the natural and spiritual position of the Apostles on the one hand, and of the Jews on the other, was utterly unfavourable to the spread of Christianity by means of a written record.
Would it not have been best then if the Church just hid the books from public. Would be the most effective way to make sure no one would read a, you called it a dead book?, and to prevent heresies from spreading. Oh my I should have been born thousands of years ago haha
P
pilgrim_NL
Guest
It doesn’t say.
- Status