Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[guanophore]

And Scriptures were given so that no error would be conceived in church tradition.

No.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are two equal strands of the divine deposit of faith. They were deposited “once for all” to the Church. Nothing can be added or subtracted from either one. We cannot “conceive” church tradition any more than we can “conceive” more books to add to the NT!

These two divine Sources of the Apostolic faith work together to fight heresy, and keep the faithful pure in the understanding of the doctrines of the faith.

Your complaints about more recent dogmatic proclamations rest on rejection of the Sacred Tradition. This is the result of failing to keep the Apostolic commandment to preserve them. They had to be jettisoned at the Reformation, so that new doctrines like the “five solas” could be created.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters,[a] stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Then dont say the church was left with full deposit of faith with the apostles.

This is a non-sequitor. The children of the Reformers espouse the position that Scripture contains all that is needed, and that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture, or is needed to understand Scripture. This is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

Our developing understanding of the faith that was left to us does not equate to “adding” to either Scripture or Tradition.

 

[mcq72]

Your complaints about more recent dogmatic proclamations rest on rejection of the Sacred Tradition

Well, more that I have admitted my prejudice against Assumption partly because it is so Catholic. I would add you are prejudiced for it because it is Catholic.

But i would hope to be free from such prejudice and be fully persuaded by the merits the case, even as presented by both sides of the matter.

 

[mcq72]

The children of the Reformers espouse the position that Scripture contains all that is needed, and that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that is not in Scripture, or is needed to understand Scripture. T

Not sure if that is entire picture.I understood that they looked at traditions and practices for their validity, to be in “truth and spirit”, by being harmonious or even explicit in Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Well, more that I have admitted my prejudice against Assumption partly because it is so Catholic.

At some point you might want to consider the faith of the Eastern Orthodox, who share this Apostolic teaching with us, but have no love lost on “Catholicism”.

To be honest, it was studying the EO beliefs that brought me to faith in this, rather than the Catholic. I did go back at a later point and learn about the Catholic perspective. I am “prejudiced for it” because I accept Sacred Tradition, and it is part of the divine deposit of faith. This faith is retained by all the ancient Churches that were planted by Apostles, including those that are not Catholic.

But i would hope to be free from such prejudice and be fully persuaded by the merits the case, even as presented by both sides of the matter.

I commend your open mindedness on this. This is exactly what the CC teaches about doctrines/dogmas that a person cannot espouse. Only that we be open to be fully persuaded, if that be God’s will.

Not sure if that is entire picture.I understood that they looked at traditions and practices for their validity, to be in “truth and spirit”, by being harmonious or even explicit in Scripture.

I agree, but that is because they are considered human traditions, and not the Word of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

 

[Wannano]

mcq72:

The earliest father writings about the woman in Revelation…they say nothing about Mary’s assumption

What early writings are those?

The bulk of the work in the first four centuries was centered around Christology and fighting various heresies. There was no need to fight about Mary, because there were no disputes regarding her. It is the same with infant baptism. It was done by the Apostles, so there was no dispute, except the argument over whether the Church should wait to the 8th day, as it was understood to take the place of circumcision.

Guano, are you absolutely 100%sure that you can prove that the Apostles did baptise infants? I have read about the dispute about waiting for the 8th day and how that argument is used to prove that they did, however, i also have read that that dispute took place in the second or third century. Do you know if that dispute took place while the Apostles were still alive?

 

[Benadam]

Then dont say the church was left with full deposit of faith with the apostles.

It’s not an either or thing, it’s a both and thing. The deposit grows as the Holy Spirit guides.

 

[guanophore]

Guano, are you absolutely 100%sure that you can prove that the Apostles did baptise infants?

No. I cannot prove scientifically that there is even a God.

I can’t prove that the people who wrote the NT are actually the authors. I accept these things because this is the faith that has been passed down to me from the Apostles.

As there is sufficient scientific evidence to convince me there is a God, so there is sufficient evidence to convince me about infant baptism.

i also have read that that dispute took place in the second or third century. Do you know if that dispute took place while the Apostles were still alive?

Yes, it was a very late argument (comparitively). By the time it arose, the Church had already been baptizing infants for over 200 years.

The deposit grows as the Holy Spirit guides.

It might be more accurate to say that our understanding of it grows, since the deposit was made once, and cannot be changed.

 

[Benadam]

I was hoping it would be questioned.Not by you though. :slightly_smiling_face:I was setting up mcq72 and Wannano thry know more Catholic doctrine than most Catholics now. I wanted to touch on the paradox of the deposit of faith. In the meaning of the term fullness of truth guided to all truth. How they relate to infallibility and the living Tradition. They are probably rolling their eyes now

 

[Wannano]

I was hoping it would be questioned.Not by you though. :slightly_smiling_face:I was setting up mcq72 and Wannano thry know more Catholic doctrine than most Catholics now. I wanted to touch on the paradox of the deposit of faith. In the meaning of the term fullness of truth guided to all truth. How they relate to infallibility and the living Tradition. They are probably rolling their eyes now

Actually I am scratching my head and grimacing!

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Guano, are you absolutely 100%sure that you can prove that the Apostles did baptise infants?

No. I cannot prove scientifically that there is even a God.

I can’t prove that the people who wrote the NT are actually the authors. I accept these things because this is the faith that has been passed down to me from the Apostles.

As there is sufficient scientific evidence to convince me there is a God, so there is sufficient evidence to convince me about infant baptism.

i also have read that that dispute took place in the second or third century. Do you know if that dispute took place while the Apostles were still alive?

Yes, it was a very late argument (comparitively). By the time it arose, the Church had already been baptizing infants for over 200 years.

The deposit grows as the Holy Spirit guides.

It might be more accurate to say that our understanding of it grows, since the deposit was made once, and cannot be changed.

I was brought up and continue my faith journey in a believers baptism church. I can see the arguments and reasonings for both infant and adult baptism. I wonder why, if baptism is so fundemental to faith, the NT is not more specific to the practice of infant baptism.

 

[jcrichton]

Exactly!

Is it?

As you stated, Jesus chose to Reveal–though I would not necessarily state it in your words since Jesus made it clear that it was the Job/Function of the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete, to Bring the Church to the Fullness of Truth and that it would be the Holy Spirit that would Remind the Church of His Teaching and would Reveal (Unfold) that which she was not able to accept/receive/understand during His Ministry.

Here’s how that deposit of Faith is done/complete/finished:

9 Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world. (2 Timothy 1)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ: 4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity. 5 Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will: (Ephesians 1)

How Powerful is that? God’s Salvific Plan was not only in Effect but actually Completed even before Creation! What a done deal!

Yet, that’s only God’s Perspective–it is not actual temporal time and space… here’s some of the Unfolding:

10 But is now made manifest by the illumination of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath destroyed death, and hath brought to light life and incorruption by the gospel: (2 Timothy 1)
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: 5 That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Galatians 1)

Yet, there is further Unfolding;

6 And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. 7 Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God. 8 But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them, who, by nature, are not gods. 9 But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again? (Galatians 4)
11 Wherein I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles. 12 For which cause I also suffer these things: but I am not ashamed. For I know whom I have believed, and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against that day. 13 Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us. (2 Timothy 1)

Continued

 

[jcrichton]

…and finally:
9 That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him, 10 In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him. 11 In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will. 12 That we may be unto the praise of his glory, we who before hoped Christ: 13 In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise, 14 Who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of acquisition, unto the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1)

Because the Church is the Deposit of Truth, she is enabled, by the Holy Spirit, to continue to Unfold God’s Revelation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

And Scriptures were given so that no error would be conceived in church tradition

Not!

Scriptures are part of Church Tradition as it has been pointed out so many times in so many threads by so many Catholics to so many Protestants and disbelievers:

12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2)

How can you not see (you and all those who profess to obey the Word of God [Sacred Scriptures] as the rule or authority to obey) that Scriptures themselves, Inspired by the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete, Whom Jesus Sent to Remain in the Church and to Guide the Church to the Fullness of Truth, that St. Paul and the other Apostles Taught the Word of God and held as Sacredly Divine Inspiration their Oral Teaching along with the Writing Teaching?

How much temerity does it take to claim to obey the Word of God while yet rejecting the Word of God when the Word of God demonstrates that you must submit to Apostolic Teaching in both the Oral and Written Tradition?

The Written Teaching of the Apostles are meant to maintain the Believers in the Path not to annul the Oral Teaching–this is the Authority Delegated to the Church by Christ Himself. It is the reason why the Apostles functioned as a Unit:

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3)
1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Ephesians 4)

The Oral Tradition existed prior to and along with the Written Tradition even in the Old Covenant.

Maran atha!

Angel

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

But i would hope to be free from such prejudice and be fully persuaded by the merits the case, even as presented by both sides of the matter

How can you persuade a Catholic who Knows the Faith to give up the Faith?

Only those who seek the ‘feel-good’ (liberal) theology would embrace any teaching that goes against what the Holy Spirit has Brought to the Church.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Guano, are you absolutely 100%sure that you can prove that the Apostles did baptise infants?

The problem with such premise is that it demands that only adults be Baptized. This rendering ignores the fact that until Jesus’ Ministry Baptism was not Commanded by Christ so in a society where children and women were invisible you would mostly find mention of males.

However, these same people who reject infant Baptism are quick to perform Chinese acrobatics to dispute the Word of God when it states that whole families where Baptized–to them it seems right that children and infants not be included as part of “whole families.”

They remind me of those who claim that science cannot determine when life begins (at the moment of conception) and that a child is not a child in his/her mother womb–yet, they go to the mat to fight for dogs, cats, and other non-humans because they are ‘important members of the family.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

I was brought up and continue my faith journey in a believers baptism church. I can see the arguments and reasonings for both infant and adult baptism. I wonder why, if baptism is so fundemental to faith, the NT is not more specific to the practice of infant baptism.

I had a “believer’s baptism” too when I wandered away from the Catholic Church, and spent the next 20 some years sojourning among my separated brethren.

I think the ambiguity of baptism in scripture is one of the best examples of how the NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The faith was committed to the Church, and at no point did the Church attempt to enscripturate everything.

 

[jcrichton]

I wonder why, if baptism is so fundemental to faith, the NT is not more specific to the practice of infant baptism.

So how many discourses did Jesus give on abortion, fornication, prostitution, homosexuality, recreational drugs, slavery, racism, technology, sola Scriptura, gene splicing, cloning… let’s not forget being born again and adultery, divorce and remarriage?

From your inference it seems that Christ was good on all those subjects–He must have meant, ‘go ahead, do you, God understands,’ right?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I think the ambiguity of baptism in scripture is one of the best examples of how the NT was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. The faith was committed to the Church, and at no point did the Church attempt to enscripturate everything.

Exactly!

Those who reject the Authority of the Church are as Jesus put it, ‘blind guides that guide others to perdition.’ (ok, paraphrased!)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[feed_me]

So your issue is not with doctors and medicine only with mental health, correct?

Correct, it is a lie to allow Satan to have his foothold in a persons life. Ephesions 4: 27

My first direct experience with this illness was when I was a child of about five years of age–mom was visiting relatives and friends and we came upon a house where a very seemingly loving and caring woman tripped into anger when mom could not fulfill her desire to get the label of a cigar (in the form of a ring/crown) so that she could put it on her doll’s finger… mom had to speedily exit the house (with me in tow) as this peaceful woman began to curse mom and pursuit her violently.

Then she the violent lady needs to resolve the trauma that was inflicted on her that made her go ballistic

Can demon possessions take place and manifest themselves in mental illness? That is a matter for another threat.

Does mental illness exist? Experience demonstrates that it does.

Maran atha!

Angel

Again people that know the scriptures that actually deal with sin (which is the unfortunite minority) already see right through the lie.

 

[mcq72]

Only those who seek the ‘feel-good’ (liberal) theology would embrace any teaching that goes against what the Holy Spirit has Brought to the Churc

Religion, even religions of the world, are filled with “feel good” theology and practices. Certainly early Christianity ran counter to that, even suffering persecutions. But I would say some feel good “stuff” has crept in, as it may have also after reformers got “settled in” after their persecution days also.

So yes, there is some feel good stuff for some protestants and some churches.

Now would you be like some P folk and say that is not true in “our church”(CC) but just for those “other” churches, down the road?