Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[jcrichton]

The Purpose of the church is not unity, but indeed unity serves the Purpose.

The Purpose of the church is best served when we are under the headship of Christ and grow into maturity of being Christ like, a “Christian”.

That it is to be Catholic, as in capital “C” and “Roman”, is debatable, but to be universal, which is can and does exist, should not be debatable

I suppose the same could be said of “communion”, the eucharist/thanksgiving.That is there is a higher calling for the rite than for it to be exclusively Catholic, as in Roman Catholic

…which sounds good for the “feel good” theology which implies that all roads lead to Heaven, even non-Christian, just as long as people come to a union of “xyz.”

Simeon saw the Apostles laying of hands and he had a great idea, ‘if I buy this thing I can add it to my bag of tricks.’

It’s not about embracing everything and holding in a bag of tricks. It is about seeking out Jesus on His Terms: One Faith, One Baptism, One Gospel, One Body, One Holy Spirit, One Lord, One God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Can you tell me what those unwritten teachings were?

That’s the whole point of Oral Tradition!

Those who reject the Church’s Authority miss out on this because they simply do not want to have the Church as their Authority; they traded in the Bishop of Rome for the thousands of bishops allover the place and in allover the spectrum.

We find the Unfolding of the Church right from Scriptures: Doctrine, Worship, Magisterium, Ministry (which includes social justice), along with all the changes and growth which was set in Motion by Christ.

Dismantle Christ’s Design and you have a church invented in the image of man.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I would just say you did have a gnostic church despite the Word of God , in any fashion.

I believe there are still gnostics today.

I fully concur!

Why is Gnosticism still present?

…well, man has the freedom granted by God: freewill. He can use his freewill to submit to God’s Will or he can reinvent the wheel.

Gnostics are the best proof that sola Scriptura does not function as they have God’s Revelation in Sacred Writing but because they are removed from the Authority of the Church they choose to reject the Holy Spirit’s Guidance to the Body of Christ; they choose to believe God cannot be known, in spite of God’s Revelation through nature, Sacred Writing, and His Church!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

It seems this would be difficult to determine, since I have not “admitted” anything about Scripture.

Well, you say Writ is not the full compendium of faith, that Jesus and apostles taught more than is recorded in Writ.
.I have asked what did Jesus or apostles teach that is not taught from their writ ?

What did Jesus teach differently after His resurection, or anytime, that only non Writ Tradition captures and conveys to this day ?

 

[mcq72]

You have inserted the word “perfect” to replace the word “profitable” in this passage? Or are you finding it elsewhere

Yes. The very next verse, that we may be perfectly equipped…Does not say Tradition will perfectly equip. Does not say the gifts of teaching or apostleship will not be needed…just that the teacher and student have the textbook to be perfectly equipped.

 

[mcq72]

Now you seem to be moving the bar. You asked…

Dont think so…am responding to your paradigm that not all teachings of Christ and the apostles are in the Bible. I think you shift the paradigm to show the application and unfolding of original teachings known as councils, liturgy, tradition, which are not quite the same thing as a direct teaching.

Again, I humbly submit Writ left nothing out that was taught by Jesus or apostles.
Dont want to confuse that with the leading and teaching thru HS with new “applications”

 

[mcq72]

said that the teachings of the Apostles, preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit are found in the Catechism, Liturgies, prayers of the Church and the findings of the councils.

I partly disagree that apostolic teaching is preserved by councils etc… I partly think understanding , intent, intetpretation of their teaching is presented by council.

For example the jerusalem council did not so much preserve the OT Writ and prophecy of Joel, but rather gave an understanding and application of it. Joel did not teach that gentiles in future need not be circumcised.

So like I would doubt that Jesus or apostles taught IC or assumption…It is not apostolic but rather a church presentation claimed to be HS led with some biblical reference(not explicit).

 

[guanophore]

I have asked what did Jesus or apostles teach that is not taught from their writ ?

Yes, and appear to consistently disregard the answers.

Jesus did not write anything. Most of the Apostles did not write anything. What is “not taught from writ”? Clearly the bulk of the faith, which is contained in Sacred Tradition. The table of contents of the NT being a basic foundation.

What did Jesus teach differently after His resurection, or anytime, that only non Writ Tradition captures and conveys to this day ?

I am puzzled why you would think that His teaching after the resurrection was “different”? He taught His apostles privately in more detail, but not "differently. He taught them about the “Kingdom of God”, and how to bring it to the world.

The very next verse, that we may be perfectly equipped…Does not say Tradition will perfectly equip.

I did not claim that it would. The equipping of the saints is a ministerial work. It is a gift/vocation that is given to those who are called to it, and it is worked in and through the Church by the Holy Spirit. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are “profitable” in this ministry.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

The Apostolic commandment to hold fast to the Word of God (in both forms) holds just as true today as it did in the first century.

Does not say the gifts of teaching or apostleship will not be needed…just that the teacher and student have the textbook to be perfectly equipped.

No, the NT is not a “textbook”, and was never intended to be so. Neither can having the “textbook” perfectly equip anyone. If this were true, we would not see so many divisions in the Church today.

I think you shift the paradigm to show the application and unfolding of original teachings known as councils, liturgy, tradition, which are not quite the same thing as a direct teaching.

I can understand why this might seem like a paradigm shift to you. If a person does not believe that the Holy Spirit is able to preserve His word where He has placed it, or to lead the Church into 'all Truth", then unfolding of the original teachings will not appear as a development of a once for all divine deposit of faith.

You asked where one could find the part of the Teachings not found in Scripture. I gave you some examples. You have set these aside as invalid. This is your right to do. You are not bound by the commandment to preserve the Sacred Traditions, since you have espoused the position that the “word of mouth” part of them no longer exists.

 

[guanophore]

Again, I humbly submit Writ left nothing out that was taught by Jesus or apostles.

Is this not a necessary element to Sola Scriptura?

which are not quite the same thing as a direct teaching…

I would say that this is the most salient element of the purpose of Sacred Tradition. We can all read the Scriptures, and come up with as many different interpretations as there are belly buttons. Sacred Tradition is the lens through which those who received the faith from the Apostles understand what is written. The reason we understand it so differently is that we interpret within the framework of what was delivered by “word of mouth.”

We have received the faith of the Apostles as “direct teaching”, and you have not.

I partly disagree that apostolic teaching is preserved by councils etc… I partly think understanding , intent, intetpretation of their teaching is presented by council.

It makes sense that you would do the same with the Councils as you do with Scripture - just disregard the parts with which you don’t agree. Some parts of Sacred Tradition you accept, such as the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, worship on Sunday, etc.

For example the jerusalem council did not so much preserve the OT Writ and prophecy of Joel, but rather gave an understanding and application of it. Joel did not teach that gentiles in future need not be circumcised.

Catholics call this the development of doctrine. The limitation is that Sacred Tradition also holds that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. For that reason, nothing can be added or subtracted from the once for all divine deposit of faith.

The NT is full of Apostolic Teaching that reframes what is found in the OT. It is not accurate to say that “OT Writ” is not preserved. On the contrary, it is preserved in it’s entirety, but understood from a different frame of mind.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, and appear to consistently disregard the answers.

Sorry, didnt know Jesus has no Writ, that the Word of God is only oral, that His breath only gives vocal utterance.

Jesus did not write anything.

 

[mcq72]

Most of the Apostles did not write anything.

So true, but so slanted. Statistics, statistics and misdirection.

 

[mcq72]

am puzzled why you would think that His teaching after the resurrection was “different”?

Because you think it is beyond writ but not tradition.

 

[mcq72]

He taught His apostles privately in more detail, but not "differently. He taught them about the “Kingdom of God”, and how to bring it to the world.

Not sure, but like what detail, how do you know

 

[mcq72]

No, the NT is not a “textbook”, and was never intended to be so.

Oh little children cover your ears, for apparently “BIBLE” is not “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth”…lol

Paul to Timothy, "You too (cover your ears).

 

[rcwitness]

Saying that the “Bible” is your highest rule does not change the fact that you must equally rely on whatever interpretation and traditions you decide.

What does the Bible tell us about divorce and remarriage? Can a remarriage be justified in God’s eyes?

For this very important answer, you are forced to rely on tradition and interpretation! Most Protestants claim a valid marriage can be dissolved because of adultery and/or abandonment.

Does the BIBLE say that???

 

[guanophore]

"mcq72:

Sorry, didnt know Jesus has no Writ, that the Word of God is only oral, that His breath only gives vocal utterance.

“Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” John 8

Well, He did write something but we dont know what!

Mark 4:34 “…he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”

John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

The Sacred Tradition was preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles, and the HS brought all these things to rememberance. Not all these things were committed to writing. This is why the Apostle enjoined us to hold fast to both Sources.

So true, but so slanted. Statistics, statistics and misdirection.

And what is the slant? That the Church contains more of what Jesus taught than what is found in the Scripture?

Because you think it is beyond writ but not tradition.

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two strands of the same once for all divine deposit to the Church. They complement one another. Sacred Tradition holds the perspective of how we are to understand the portion that was written. Such things that that are still the subject of argument today, such as the Sacraments (infant baptism and Real presence especially) , the authority of the Church, and the doctrines of the faith.

These are the fundamentals of how theology has departed after the Reformation in concepts that the Apostles did not teach (Calvin’s TULIP for example) and Sola Scriptura.

Not sure, but like what detail, how do you know

We know by how the Apostles structured the early Church, such as apostolic succession, selection of deacons and elders, organization and discipline in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Oh little children cover your ears, for apparently “BIBLE” is not “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth”…lol

Actually this was one of my favorite memes when I sojourned among my Baptist brethren long ago. Catholics never taught me to read the Bible, and the only bible I had as a youth was a KJV my grandmother bought me for communion gift. I tried to read it like any other book, and always got lost in Leviticus. Eventually I left the faith into which I was baptized due to an insatiable craving for scripture.

But my point was that the "scriptures’ to which Paul was referring was the Septuagint, with which Timothy was reared. No Christian today would expect to function with only those books. Paul found Christ in them because of divine revelation, but we know that the Jews today don’t see Christ in those books, and many Christians do not either.

Perhaps I am over reacting to the term “textbook”. As a college professor, I use textbooks very differently than Scripture. I spent 3 years in seminary learning Greek and Biblical archeology, textual criticism, ethnology and other disciplines that unlocked many “scholarly” aspects of Scripture (as one might do with any ancient text) but in the end, it was made clear to me that it is even less of a “textbook”. It is a library, a collection of works that when written, each stood alone (except the books of Luke and Acts). The letters of John became cumulative over time, and Paul references two other times he wrote to Corinth that were not preserved. There is great overlap between Colosians and Ephesians, almost as if taken from a template.

Anyway, I can blather on about the contents, but you and I will have to disagree that it is a “textbook”. It does contain essential elements of the faith, but it was never intended to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it, and was given authority to interpret it. Removing it from that Source causes divisions.

1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[mcq72]

And what is the slant?

That most apostles did not “author/write” Writ, which is true, therefore quantifying the role of writ vs oral

…so that tradition, word of mouth, hearsay, has more has more data therefore has equal role or more than God breathed writ…even that tradition must be God breathed

Like ot jews minimizing written record of prophets (writ) because most prophets that ever lived did not write any books…

Thats the “slant”

Like it would and should be much more reputable for Writ to say Mary was assumed into heaven than for a pope to decree it millenia later and based on tradition/ hearsay.

 

[guanophore]

That most apostles did not "author:/write Writ, which is true, therefore quantifying the role of writ vs oral

I think you lost me here. The NT is considered inspired and inerrant, regardless of the identity of the authors. The content, just as the content of Sacred Tradition, is considered to be Apostolic teaching.

You seem to reject the findings of the Councils by asking how many Apostles attended them (after the Jerusalem council).

…so that tradition, word of mouth, hearsay, has more has more data therefore has equal role or more than God breathed writ…even that tradition must be God breathed

The Holy Spirit does not initiate, protect, preserve and promulgate “hearsay”. He is able to transmit His Word throughout generations by “word of mouth”.

There has never been any effort to determine any amount of “data” contained in the Divine Revelation.

Like it would and should be much more reputable for Writ to say Mary was assumed into heaven than for a pope to decree it millenia later and based on tradition/ hearsay.

I certainly do wish that Scripture was more specific about a great many things. But the fact is that the whole of the faith is not contained in the writings.

The Gospel of Christ is not “hearsay”. The Apostle did not commend the disciples for holding fast to gossip!

 

[mcq72]

You seem to reject the findings of the Councils by asking how many Apostles attended them (after the Jerusalem council).

Actually i thought you implied that councils contain/show forth apostolic teachings…their oral teachings…not contained Writ.

I implied that they only show forth an application or further clarification of what they did teach…