Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Wannano]

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.

---

Do you think it is dangerous to believe that the written word however contains all that we need to know to obtain belief in Jesus’ Gospel and live it faithfully in our lives here on earth?

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

The Catechism says; The Holy Spirit will NEVER call someone to leave the True Roman Catholic Church.

It also says it is is a mortal sin under the three conditions to leave the True Roman Catholic Church, if you know fully that the Roman Catholic Church is the True Faith.

 

[jcrichton]

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

That which the Apostles passed down through the Oral Apostolic Teaching–even the Written Teaching speak of this; you and those who reject the Catholic Church’s Authority cannot but be blinded by lack of Faith… ‘as I teach in all the churches,’ does your “found in Scriptures” show what it is that St. Paul was referring to or do you surmise that only what was written down was what St. Paul was stating?

Either there is more to Apostolic Teaching than what is found in Scriptures or St. Paul is quite confused about writing that he teaches what he has written as he has written what he has taught (get the gist?).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Does the BIBLE say that???

That’s their flaw.

They claim obedience to Scriptures; yet, it is not obedience to Scriptures but to the liberties granted by their founder/s or even themselves: their interpretation of Scriptures.

While Jesus say no divorce; they say, divorce and remarriage is granted by Sacred Scriptures!

Their interpretation of the Word of God makes the Word of God void.

Didn’t Jesus sang a bunch of woes to people who did exactly that at His Revelation (Ministry of Israel)?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Nicene]

Nope, else every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and atheist who ever read the sacred scripture would be Christian. So what’s missing? Second which denomination is telling the truth of the 40k out there now? For Catholics: truth matters, relativism is a false gospel. Even sacred scripture tells us what is the pillar and foundation of truth. St. Paul in romans 10:14-15 tells us what. And calling upon the lord is completely misunderstood and corrupted.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[jcrichton]

Nope, else every Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and atheist who ever read the sacred scripture would be Christian. So what’s missing? Second which denomination is telling the truth of the 40k out there now? For Catholics: truth matters, relativism is a false gospel. Even sacred scripture tells us what is the pillar and foundation of truth. St. Paul in romans 10:14-15 tells us what. And calling upon the lord is completely misunderstood and corrupted.

This is the blind spot of sola Scriptura; if all it would take is Sacred Scriptures than all of humanity who reads or is read Sacred Scriptures would become Christian–not just that but all Christian would truly be one in Christ with One Baptism, One Faith, One Gospel, One Body, One Holy Spirit, One Lord, One God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[feed_me]

1st. There is nothing wrong with sola scriptula, that is how you fight of demons that harrass you, aka sola scriptula is the sword of the Spirit, the word of God.

2nd. The protostants are split because not all are from God, but yet alot are false profits er I mean prophets and teachers that have their own agenda.

 

[jcrichton]

1st. There is nothing wrong with sola scriptula, that is how you fight of demons that harrass you, aka sola scriptula is the sword of the Spirit, the word of God

I don’t think that you understand what sola Scriptura stands for; it is not just study/reading of Sacred Scriptures. It stands for ‘the Bible alone is the source of truth and authority.’ This means that only what is found in Scriptures counts.

This is a fallacy for two major reasons: 1) Jesus nor the Apostles Believed or Taught such principle, and 2) sola Scripturalists do not truly depend upon Scriptures alone as their source of truth and authority as they actually hold theirs and/or their founders’ interpretation of Scriptures as the Word of God.

The intention is very very good; the reality can be quite far removed.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

Do you think it is dangerous to believe that the written word however contains all that we need to know to obtain belief in Jesus’ Gospel and live it faithfully in our lives here on earth?

The first part, no, the second, yes. The reason I say that is that the Scriptures are sufficient to lead us to Christ and to salvation, but living out that Christian life faithfully on earth is a task that has been given to the Church, the pillar and ground of the Truth. If one is left alone with their own interpretation of the Scripture then any manner of skewed perceptions can warp the message. Ultimately, people will rely on their own personal interpretation, or that of the ecclesial community of which they are a part.

‘as I teach in all the churches,’ does your “found in Scriptures” show what it is that St. Paul was referring to or do you surmise that only what was written down was what St. Paul was stating?

Yes, I think there is an assumption (as there must be for all those who embrace Sola Scriptura) that the whole of the Apostolic teaching is contained in them.

1st. There is nothing wrong with sola scriptula, that is how you fight of demons that harrass you, aka sola scriptula is the sword of the Spirit, the word of God.

You seem to be confused, feed_me. The fact that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant, and profitable to fight off demons, does not equal the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

2nd. The protostants are split because not all are from God, but yet alot are false profits er I mean prophets and teachers that have their own agenda.

To be fair, one must acknowledge that everyone who espouses Scripture as infallible authority sees their beliefs as “from God”. Who are you to say that a person who has some beliefs from Scripture that are not like yours is not from God?

I do agree, though, there are many that have their own agenda, and not all of those are Protestant!

 

[Wannano]

Do you think it is dangerous to believe that the written word however contains all that we need to know to obtain belief in Jesus’ Gospel and live it faithfully in our lives here on earth?

Guanphore:
The first part, no, the second, yes. The reason I say that is that the Scriptures are sufficient to lead us to Christ and to salvation…

---

So now I have the opinion of three Catholic responders to my question, you, Nicene and J RICHTON. Out of the three, you are the only one who believes the Scriptures are sufficient to lead us to Christ and to salvation.

The other two claim that if the Scriptures were sufficient, anybody who reads them would become a Christian. I do not follow their reasoning but yours makes sense to me. Thanks.

 

[mcq72]

show what it is that St. Paul was referring to or do you surmise that only what was written down was what St. Paul was stating?

I only surmise that for sure that God chose to record that which was worthy and wise of Paul’s utterances.

 

[mcq72]

Either there is more to Apostolic Teaching than what is found in Scriptures

There is not more to apostolic teaching…there is more to application and understanding

 

[guanophore]

The other two claim that if the Scriptures were sufficient, anybody who reads them would become a Christian. I do not follow their reasoning but yours makes sense to me. Thanks.

What I have described is what the CC calls material and “formal” sufficiency. St. Paul wrote that the Scriptures were sufficient to lead Timothy to faith in Christ. But only the Apostolic teaching could show Timothy how that Christian life was to be lived (formal sufficiency).

What’s the difference between material and formal sufficiency? It is the difference between having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house and having a house of bricks. Catholic teaching says written Sacred Tradition (known as Scripture) is materially sufficient: all the bricks necessary to build its doctrines are there in Scripture. But because some things in Scripture are implicit rather than explicit, other stuff besides Scripture has been handed down from the apostles. This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[guanophore]

There is not more to apostolic teaching…there is more to application and understanding

I understand that it is necessary for you to believe this.

 

[Nicene]

Actually we do believe the same thing, however you really can’t say bible alone because you don’t even believe it. For example the 5 solas are taught as dogma even though they are not in sacred scripture, this is a tradition, and make no mistake it is a teaching authority that is teaching it, as well, for the purposes of this thread, TULIP, from calvinism. This didn’t come from sacred scripture but from Calvin, their teaching authority. You will find the various teachings, given equal weight, from various denomational outlooks. But you don’t hand out bibles and say “be on your way” Left to ones own devises without any (name removed by moderator)ut from the giver the recipient would never come up with TULIP or the solas on his own. Scripture is ALWAYS given with that particular denominational teaching.

One aspect of that teaching is through a lens, for example in much of Protestantism the teaching of OT to NT is through prooftexting, ironically borrowing from St Augustine the adage “the OT is the NT concealed…” from Catholics and orthodox it isn’t prooftexting but rather by typology. This is also the Jewish tradition. Almost all of the NT is written typologically.

This is amother reason I pointed out Romans 10:14-15. But read it through 17. The word hear is important there, as well as the word “sent” which in Greek is apostle. As a personal objection to the KJV it says the word of god when the majority manuscripts said preaching of Christ, personally I find that self serving. Regardless the point being is that it is an encounter with Christ through his body and why St Paul emphasis hearing, preaching, believing.

Only cognitive dissonance can explain holding to the Bible alone tenet when one realizes it is ALWAYS accompanied by that denominations teaching, or rather teaching authority since it is a dogma.

I hope that better explains what I’m driving at.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Just as another example mcq72 calls sacred scripture, “writ” (which you won’t find in sacred scripture but explains a lot with regard to his denomination) which I suppose is an attempt on his part to garner a superior position of weight to his argument. A writ is a legal written command to act or abstain from acting in a certain way from a legal authority.

Why it explains a lot is that from his point of view through his lens justification is a legal decree rather than being “made” just by God through cleansing of baptism. For him justification is only a legalism.

Let’s see if writ fits: is the Song of Solomon a legal decree? Are the praises of God in Psalms a legal decree? When St. Paul, St John and Jesus speak of his body and bride, is it a legal decree? Which means a covenant isn’t a covenant but rather a contract. I know (and I don’t mean this lightly) he doesn’t know what comprises a covenant.

A Sheva means to seven oneself, it is a familial bond of blood. It is how you become a son, an actual son, not a legalized foster son.

My point being, is sacred scripture a legal document from God as mcq72 describes through his tradition or is it the story of God, Jesus, their covenants, prayers, poems (song of Solomon) history (chronicles and Kings) in short a biblia (library of books)

I suspect your teaching authority in your denomination will be very different than his on what sacred scripture is.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

I almost forgot when you asked does the Bible contain everything we need to believe in Jesus, I asked what was missing. It’s something that comes from a person, not the books, , it’s the first moment to faith, namely grace.

To cite Jesus: Jn 5:39 You search the scriptures, because that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Just something to ponder.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[rcwitness]

John 20
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

When we believe, we accept His life. When we accept His life, we enter the Church through belief and Baptism. Then, we are able to live by the Holy Spirit and so partake of His Eucharist in a worthy manner.

 

[Benadam]

good point. I think that the term ‘God Breathed’ is not taken in it’s proper and natural context by bible only Christians.

Jesus exhaled to communicate the breath of the Spirit into the Apostles. Jesus exhaled the Words that He said are Spirit. The Apostles exhaled when they taught the word of God. Protestants don’t seem to discern the Spirit as Breath in the written Word. They discern breath in Scriptures not as written but as if it is spoken. The written form of Tradition requires that the Spirit is breathed inward by the Holy Spirit in the reader…They don’t seem to know that when they use the term 'God breathed. Because they don’t properly discern the Breath in the Scriptures they seem to believe the Spirit communicates universal truth to the reader and can use Sacred Scriptures Sola to lead them to all truth. A promise given to the Church not individuals.

 

[Benadam]

The other two claim that if the Scriptures were sufficient, anybody who reads them would become a Christian. I do not follow their reasoning but yours makes sense to me. Thanks.

I hope you don’t mind Wannano if I post how I think of sufficiency of the Traditions

If 1000 years ago all the Christians disappeared, taken off the earth, and all that was left were their bibles. Would the Church survive? Would there be a saving faith on earth today?

if all the bibles disappeared off the earth would the Church survive?