Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[Wannano]

Wannano:

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

You really like to jump to conclusions and belittle others don’t you? Somehow you need that to feel superior. I actually feel sorry for you.

 

[mcq72]

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

Thank you for the verses. However I do not see where they state that the "us’, to which the mysteries of His will are shared with, is say Rome over other patriarchs, or above a council or say even some reformers , who are still part of "us’’.

The verses tell of His salvation plan, as you state, which we all share thru faith and baptism into Christ…does not really help out determining whether faith in Assumption is relevant .The central theme of salvation is Christ, His redemptive work, to His glory. The verses are not specific to salvation thru a particular church, nor do they deal with when one part of church says one thing on Assumption and the other something else. “Us” is “us”, the Spirit leading all in one direction on the matter.

Finally, not sure verses state the continual growth of the deposit of faith, save that which is necessary to put all things under His subjection at the end of time…of course revelation comes to “us” , the church , as opposed to Buddhists or Hindus ect.

We are at the old crossroads of discerning what hath God really said,even written.

 

[mcq72]

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

No persuasion, just trying to be transparent, and encouraging self examining as to what or who persuades us and why we think we “know”.

 

[mcq72]

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

Thank you, understand. You are like P’s then with your own pandora’s box to beware off when stating decrees and “expanding understanding”…stating infallibility is the first sign of possible ill, just like our repudiation of any tradition and its value would be an ill

 

[mcq72]

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

HI W,

reminds me of Bazooka Joe bubble gum cartoon, where Joe is looking for keys or something near a street lamp post (twas night). His friend comes along and asks where did he drop them and Joe points away from light into the dark.The friend asks why he was lookin under post then…Joe says cause there was more light there.

I think we are admonished in scripture to just look ahead to the light He has given our path before us. For sure we know of a believers baptism, without a doubt, universal even. Quite specific as you imply. The rest is speculation,relative to what is explicit.

Religious rites or “righteous works” are problematic. We need them, to be obedient to them, but are no guarantee of them being effectual, unless God first does a “work”. I mean it happened with circumcision, then with baptism, especially infant, also with saying sinners prayer, etc., etc.

I wonder if john the baptist did newborns…I know church architecture, of first churches, lead some to believe there was a specific era when infant baptism became commonplace, and that being centuries later of first church (read it on book about Notre Dame)

 

[mcq72]

o be honest, it was studying the EO beliefs that brought me to faith in this, rather than the Catholic.

yes I see that now thank you. Definitely adds more weight to its possibility. One thing i read from them though is that they believe Mary did have original sin, like you or I (but yes she was holy and graced).

So reading about EO on the matter was one step forward but then one step backward again.I believe it all begins even earlier (contention) over whether she had other children or was she forever virgin, then was she sinless, then by immaculate conception, then assumption. I see it as an example of a little bit of leaven spoiling the whole lump…folks being very consumed with just how to call her blessed, and at a time when you had more and more converts coming from faiths with pagan “modannas” etc. or the human need to idealize our mothers.

It is a package deal, and I am stumped right at the beginning (her being sinless).

 

[mcq72]

Scriptures are part of Church Traditio

Yes as normative rule.

 

[mcq72]

held as Sacredly Divine Inspiration their Oral Teaching along with the Writing Teaching?

Yes, and I would hold St. Paul’s oral teaching as divine if I heard, just as I when I read it.

 

[mcq72]

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?

Again, Barnabus.

“Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”

See, I do accept some traditions as being sacred.

He wrote this much after Paul said hold on to oral teaching/tradition, for much more had been twisted, and much more written to clarify by then.

 

[mcq72]

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

Yes, but we are talking about their roles after Scriptures have “caught up” to oral.Unless of course one says revelation is still ongoing, and more to be written (and while technically not calling it “scripture”, still same as far as from God, and that infallibly, to be obeyed/believed).

 

[mcq72]

The Written Teaching of the Apostles are meant to maintain the Believers in the Path not to annul the Oral Teaching–

Correct, not to annul oral but to maintain it even seal it…like only writing can…yet it is not the end, for we still dispute writing (oral even worse)…so it is down to unction from Holy Ghost, both corporately and individually of course

 

[Benadam]

stating infallibility is the first sign of possible ill, just like our repudiation of any tradition and its value would be an ill

I’m not understanding how they equate. Infallibility is or is not. repudiating tradition is a pick and choose of tradition for which is infallible.

 

[guanophore]

yes I see that now thank you. Definitely adds more weight to its possibility. One thing i read from them though is that they believe Mary did have original sin, like you or I (but yes she was holy and graced).

Yes, but the Eastern concept of original sin is different from that of the West. They have a concept that is closer to Jewish belief. We all are in agreement about the Fall, and the consequences of separation from God’s plan for our lives, but we conceptualize it differently. In the East, Mary is called “all holy”, which is a reference to the lack of “original” and personal sin.

.I believe it all begins even earlier (contention) over whether she had other children or was she forever virgin,

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and her holy nature was understood in the same manner as how the Ark of the OT was treated. This is one reason that Apostolic churches understand that Mary had no other children. Having borne the Son of God, her womb was too holy to be returned again to every day use. We see this principle with other vessels in the OT that had been dedicated for Sacred use. To return them to profane (daily) use was a sacrilege. This is why the Jews were so offended when Pagans carried off the temple vessels.

I dont’ think this contention was 'earlier", since the Reformers also accepted that Jesus was her only son, and that she was ever virgin. But as the Sacred Scriptures have been progressively separated from the faith that produced them, some aspects of the seamless garment have been rent.

. I see it as an example of a little bit of leaven spoiling the whole lump…folks being very consumed with just how to call her blessed, and at a time when you had more and more converts coming from faiths with pagan “modannas” etc. or the human need to idealize our mothers.

I can see how it would seem that way, being separated from the Sacred Tradition as you are. You raise a good point that the role of Mary in the Church was not emphasized during these times when there were many converts from Paganism. It was not until Christianity was decriminalized that the beliefs about her identity and role became more prominent.

 

[guanophore]

It is a package deal, and I am stumped right at the beginning (her being sinless).

Yes, I think it is not possible to grasp this without going back to the identity of Jesus (upon which all the Marian dogmas are based). When she was proclaimed by the Church as the Theotokos by The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., it was for Christological reasons.

"“If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the “Theotokos” (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the word of God become flesh by birth) let him be anathema.” (The Council of Ephesus, 431 AD)

The Council’s insistence on the use of the title reflected an effort to preserve the teaching of the Church that Jesus was both Divine and human, that the two natures were united in His One Person (hypostatic union). One of the heresies rampant was an interpretation of the teachings of a Bishop of Constantinople named Nestorius. Some of his followers insisted on calling Mary only the “Mother of ‘the Christ’”. The Council insisted on the use of the title (in the Greek) “Theotokos,” (“Mother of God” or “God-bearer”) to reaffirm the central truth of what occurred in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

It was important to the early church that Jesus be understood to have taken “flesh of her flesh” (fully human as well as fully God). But it was believed that He would not have taken tainted flesh. Now you may say, Jesus could have cleansed her flesh from original sin at the time of His conception and growth in the uterus, and this is true, but for Him to be “born of woman, under the Law”, His body had to come fully from her flesh.

I would hold St. Paul’s oral teaching as divine if I heard, just as I when I read it.

Yes, of course. those whose hearts are quickened by God recognize HIs truth immediately! What you don’t hold is that those teachings were preserved infallibly in the church by the Holy Spirit. You seem to believe that all that was relevant was committed to writing, though the writings do not say this. It is a modern innovation designed to jettison the authority appointed by Christ.

Yes, but we are talking about their roles after Scriptures have “caught up” to oral.Unless of course one says revelation is still ongoing, and more to be written (and while technically not calling it “scripture”, still same as far as from God, and that infallibly, to be obeyed/believed).

No, the CC does not teach that revelation is “ongoing”, just our understanding of it. Doctrinal development is about applying the once for all deposit of faith to the current circumstances.

Yes, the Church has the gift of infallibility to prevent the faithful from passing through the gates of hell, and we are called to obey the authority appointed by Christ as if they are Christ.

 

[Wannano]

[quote="guanophore, post:2593,

. Doctrinal development is about applying the once for all deposit of faith to the current circumstances.

Yes, the Church has the gift of infallibility to prevent the faithful from passing through the gates of hell, and we are called to obey the authority appointed by Christ as if they are Christ.
[/quote]

---

---

How is the CC protected from error in its doctrinal development as it changes to address current circumstances? Or do changes in the way it once applied the deposit of faith indicate that it has practiced error in its history?

Am I correct in understanding that for the Catholic, once he realizes that his parents made him become a Christian by baptizing him when he was a baby, he must confirm that he indeed wants that and after first Communion all he has to do for salvation is believe whatever the Church dictates and as long as he goes to confession at least once a year and does not commit a mortal sin, he will not pass thru the gates of hell?

 

[guanophore]

How is the CC protected from error in its doctrinal development as it changes to address current circumstances?

The same way that Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always protected her! She prevents the faithful from falling into error. Jesus promised to remain with the Church till the end of the Age, and the Holy Spirit guides the Church as we see in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.

 

[mcq72]

What you don’t hold is that those teachings were preserved infallibly in the church by the Holy Spirit.

I do believe the Holy Spirit leads infallibly, even in the church, and that He preserves what He wills to preserve, and thru whom in the church. Whomever believes rightly on a matter today, has succession to those who have rightly believed the same in the past, even from the beginning.

And how can it be determined what who has what is “rightly believed”? The HS does not lead people in opposite directions, so if the believers are in opposition to one another with doctrine, it was not God who led them there.

of course it is not God’s fault…it is always the other church down the street who must be wrong, as some say.

 

[guanophore]

]I do believe the Holy Spirit leads infallibly, even in the church, and that He preserves what He wills to preserve, and thru whom in the church. Whomever believes rightly on a matter today, has succession to those who have rightly believed the same in the past, even from the beginning

And how can it be determined what who has what is “rightly believed”? The HS does not lead people in opposite directions, so if the believers are in opposition to one another with doctrine, it was not God who led them there.

 

[mcq72]

and we are called to obey the authority appointed by Christ as if they are Christ.

and those that are Christlike (leaders) should be obeyed…in as much as they have the mind of Christ (His word) thy should be obeyed, even imitated…and we are even to submit one to another, as Christ submitted to the Father

 

[mcq72]

It is a modern innovation designed to jettison the authority appointed by Christ.

Well, challenging papacy authority, when it goes beyond being “first amongst equals”, is from the beginning of such innovation (of there being such a bishop).