A
Agathon
Guest
So along with doubt you clearly didn’t understand my metaphor. It had to do with culpability.
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
???
is that really what prevented them from believing ?
or was it errant understanding that became tradition?
my point stands that whoever" reads/studies/immerse himself in Sacred Scriptures" can find life in Christ, and Resurrection power… that Christ could say that and Paul also, just as He said eating Him would also do likewise, ,being worded in other ways also, besides these two (writ and eating)
M
mcq72
Guest
Understand, yet we agree not to accept opinions (as valid for teaching) that are not apostolic, or contrary to church decrees.
M
mcq72
Guest
I am saying we know what apostles wrote, by tradition, still having their writings, but what was not written but is thought to be oral, we know by “tradition” alone
R
rcwitness
Guest
Not exactly. We have Church Teaching which is able to Confirm what is Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They all work together, being different expressions of Christ’s revelation through His Church.guanophore:
I am saying we know what apostles wrote, by tradition, still having their writings, but what was not written but is thought to be oral, we know by “tradition” alone
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes the we in “we know”…is the “Church”
R
rcwitness
Guest
An example of the Sacrament of His Eucharist being connected to the John six “unless you eat my flesh…” is the washing of the disciple’s feet.
Peter refuses to allow Jesus to wash his feet. Jesus tells Peter, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.”
This is significant, because THOUGH there is figurative meaning, Jesus still tells Peter he must receive or he has no part in Jesus!
Peter refuses to allow Jesus to wash his feet. Jesus tells Peter, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.”
This is significant, because THOUGH there is figurative meaning, Jesus still tells Peter he must receive or he has no part in Jesus!
M
mcq72
Guest
yes, very good thank you .Now still left with the “how” to eat Him, for we all do eat.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Take, put in your mouth, chew, and swallow.rcwitness:
yes, very good thank you .Now still left with the “how” to eat Him, for we all do eat.
J
jcrichton
Guest
This is where it started from:
Perhaps this is not what you meant. But it is what I understood from the above.
The “cure” to this “error of the Catholic Church” is presented as the principle of ‘only what is found “explicitly” in Scriptures:’ aka ‘sola Scriptura.’
I apologize if that has not been your intent.
Maran atha!
Angel
I was under the impression that you were intimating that the Catholic Church embraced error and that it taught these errors as part of the “true faith.”
Perhaps this is not what you meant. But it is what I understood from the above.
The “cure” to this “error of the Catholic Church” is presented as the principle of ‘only what is found “explicitly” in Scriptures:’ aka ‘sola Scriptura.’
I apologize if that has not been your intent.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Lets see:
Nope; Holy Writ is not the source of Life; rather, Holy Writ lead/instruct/is a means towards Salvation, which is found in Christ.
Yet, Believing in Christ, the source of Life, is not just having “knowledge” of Holy Writ!
Again, the Apostles did not Teach hypothetical/symbolic body of the Lord neither did Jesus:
St. Paul was not ordained by Christ to offer a symbolic or Holy Writ meaning; he was Commanded by the Lord to Partake of His Body and Blood–one cannot be guilty of the Lord’s Body and Blood if it is only a symbolic gesture of “remembrance.”
No matter how you want to spin it, Apostolic Teaching did not engage in hypos.
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
It is like going off to war, isn’t it.
People defend what they believe they are fighting for… but if you remove history their fight is for naught since they will be injecting into the war whatever they believe to be the “reason” for their entanglement.
By your definition we must hold all of the New Covenant’s Writing suspect.
Why?
Jesus did not employ a school of scribes to follow Him around and take down His every word.
Hence, all of the New Covenant’s Writing must be seen in that same void that you have expressed: nothing that was written is correct since it was only Oral Tradition.
Maran atha!
Angel
People defend what they believe they are fighting for… but if you remove history their fight is for naught since they will be injecting into the war whatever they believe to be the “reason” for their entanglement.
By your definition we must hold all of the New Covenant’s Writing suspect.
Why?
Jesus did not employ a school of scribes to follow Him around and take down His every word.
Hence, all of the New Covenant’s Writing must be seen in that same void that you have expressed: nothing that was written is correct since it was only Oral Tradition.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…actually, only when St. Peter addresses this issue does it become obvious that the Writings of the Apostles are being rejected (heretical teachings); yet, even if we were to assume that these are seen as Scriptures right from the get go, there’s no way that St. would be addressing Timothy about Scriptures that have just recently been inked as part of his early-childhood upbringing.
Sadly, it is a huge stretch that people make to place the New Covenant’s Writings in St. Paul’s mouth.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
It also means that when necessary non-Catholics can compartmentalize and place their this unity aside and join together to hold a community of “Christians.” However, why is it that the division between the 30,000 plus remains and continues to grow as more and more “bodies” arise?
If you truly held such “Christian unity” you would forgo all divisions; I presented the argument before: there would be only 2 divisions: Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians. Yet, when non-Catholics remain divided (not just from the Church) they are indeed not “one” body as in One Body.
Maran atha!
Angel
M
mcq72
Guest
yet Augustine says leave your teeth and belly behind
M
mcq72
Guest
the apostles nor Christ did not teach transubstantiation, of substantive change to blood
M
mcq72
Guest
Amen, and before any communion…yet by this belief in Christ you have eaten Him says Augustine…no teeh and belly needed!
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
Please, give it a rest… do you know what “vocabulary” means?
Maran atha!
Angel
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
Wow you are stuck on this aren’t you? Congrats!, you know how to quote!
Here’s Jesus’: 'unless you eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood, you have not Life in you!
Ta-da! The God that Saves trumps the seeker theologian and his disciple… well, maybe his misquoting disciple as you keep missing:
Maran atha!
Angel
Here’s Jesus’: 'unless you eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood, you have not Life in you!
Ta-da! The God that Saves trumps the seeker theologian and his disciple… well, maybe his misquoting disciple as you keep missing:
Could your pride not be blinding you or are you misinterpreting/misunderstanding what you are quoting?
Maran atha!
Angel
M
mcq72
Guest
Ironic, given that some have more “vocabulary” to describe their understanding than others
- Status