G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Fine. That is your opinion. I don’t know that God shares it with you.
But as for the comments I made to Athanasiy, he seemed to be willing to accept them. Why can’t you?
- Status
But as for the comments I made to Athanasiy, he seemed to be willing to accept them. Why can’t you?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
If a non-Catholic said something that you as a Catholic did not believe and was unsubstantiatable from either scripture or tradition, and uncommented on in the other, which would you prefer to have available to you to as your primary reference to refute the falsehood, scripture or church tradition? (Remember the way I set it up it is one or the other, you can’t have both in this instance because while addressed directly in one of them, it is completely uncommented on in the other.)
J
jimmy85
Guest
I putted myself in the shoes of a protestans and I didnt understand that.
If there is an invisible church, then where are the keys of heaven and the authority of Peter to bind stuffs in heaven and in earth, that are mentioned in the gospel?
J
jimmy85
Guest
St. Irenaeus, the great lover of the sacred books, maintains that whoever wishes to know the true must look at the tradition of the apostles. 29 He adds that even if the apostles had not left us the Scriptures, tradition would have been enough for our instruction and salvation. 30
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
Not only that Jesus left nothing in his own writing or authenticated by him , according to St. Irenaeus not even apolstles had left us the Scriptures to follow.
If the tradition is also not in express footsteps of Jesus, on which he had firmly established his followers with his continuos personal example and observance.
Then what are we left with, neither anything written or authenticated by Jesus nor anything firmly originated in Jesus’ deeds. That could be anybody’s guess.
Thanks
Firstly, JesusYeshuaIssa did not leave anything revealed on him from GodAllahYHWH in the form of written stone tablets as was in case of Moses, Secondly or anything written by JesusYeshuaIssa himself when he left from Galilee, after the incident of Crucifixion, alongwith his mother Mary in search of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel.
Jesus left nothing behind anything authenticated by him, in possession of the Church.
We do respect the NTGospels which (perhaps stand at a lower stage Thirdly) have account of Jesus life, but it does not have any strong value for us more than a book of history subject to scrutiny, internal as well as external, for each event for truth on merit.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
In ancient times , a King handed keys to his prime minister to show he was giving authority to that minister over all others.
When Jesus handed the keys to Peter, he gave authority to Peter , the first Bishop of Rome , over all others Christians.
When Jesus gave Peter the power ‘‘to bind and loose’’, he gave the authority to make binding decisions.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
…and its worthy to notice , that he was the disciple of the person , who was the disciple of St.John.
E
estesbob
Guest
I would go with the Church everytime.
J
jimmy85
Guest
yep
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Interesting. Well if that would be a common response in Catholicism, I guess that point of view, not this Sola Scriptura thing being batted around, would be a defining difference between Catholicism and most Protestants.
Am I to understand that you view scripture as nothing more than a subset within Church Tradition?
And if you go with the Church everytime, what would you do if the Church was to say things that not only aren’t addressed in scripture, but are actually controverted by scripture?
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Can you provide a link to those comments of Irenaeus? I have read some of his work, but I don’t recall those comments.
J
jimmy85
Guest
I took it form “The instruction of the study of the fathers of the church in the formation of priests.”
It is in adversus heresies
I just have the latin and the greek index.
on the PL (Patrologia Latina) 3,3,1
or in the greek version PG (Patrologia Graeca) 7, 848.
However you can read the book here:
newadvent.org/fathers/
It must be in the firsts book of adversus heresies, I recommend you to read it and the other writtings as well.
I will relly in the promise of Christ:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 “and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
A
Athanasiy
Guest
There is interesting thought from the Henry Newman :
The more arguments there are for a certain doctrine found in Scripture, the more objections will be found against it . . . The arguments which are used to prove that the Church system is not in Scripture, may as cogently be used to prove that no system is in Scripture. If silence in Scripture, or apparent contariety, is an argument against the Church system, it is an argument against system altogether. No system is on the surface of Scripture; none, but has at times to account for the silence or the apparent opposition of Scripture as to particular portions of it . . . Though there really is a true creed or system in Scripture, still it is not on the surface of Scripture, but is found latent and implicit within it."
The more arguments there are for a certain doctrine found in Scripture, the more objections will be found against it . . . The arguments which are used to prove that the Church system is not in Scripture, may as cogently be used to prove that no system is in Scripture. If silence in Scripture, or apparent contariety, is an argument against the Church system, it is an argument against system altogether. No system is on the surface of Scripture; none, but has at times to account for the silence or the apparent opposition of Scripture as to particular portions of it . . . Though there really is a true creed or system in Scripture, still it is not on the surface of Scripture, but is found latent and implicit within it."
A
Athanasiy
Guest
What things , You think are addressed in the Scripture or not controverted by the Scripture?
I believe that even if the Protestants or Your denomination have found some codes or ciphers in the Scripture about the ‘’exact knowledge’’ Which the Catholic Church could not find
( though it is not true of course.) – the Sola Scriptura did not solve the problem of authority.
I am far from being an expert in the history , but I think that Reformers were insisting on the secondary things and they have sinned against the past , present and the future of the most important things.
The most important thing was - the unity of the Catholic Europe .
Only by this reason – You and those who were before You : have found in the Scripture the things that are not there and missed the things which are there.
I do not believe that Church will compromise with the spirit of time .and the false doctrines.
There is a divine stamp in the Catholic Teaching.
The Church teachings about the Salvation and Morality are unchanging, absolute and immutable, its teachings are eternal , fixed , revealed principles .
I simply do not believe that Vatican apostacy is possible.
It’s just my opinion.
E
estesbob
Guest
Well ;let me see-if given the choice between following the teachings of the Church Founded by Christ and consistent for 2,000 years OR someones personal intrrperation of Scripture yes I think i would go with the Churcg
One does not take precedence over the other. They both affirm each other and there is no contradiction between the two
It has never happeend and we were promised it never would. Now if one wants to look at doctrines that not only aren’t addressed in scripture, but are actually controverted by scripture one would need look no furher than the doctrines of Sola Fidelis and Sola Scriptura.
J
jimmy85
Guest
“Scripture, Tradition and Authority” cant go appart of each other, and cant mean different stuffs.
If you see a “so call contradiction” between this 3 stuffs then you are having a mistake.
Perhaps you must read the bible as a book covenants and not as a whole novel.
That would explain why there are some “so call contraditions”
within the biblie and on the tradition and on the authority.
It will help you to understand that stuffs change from covenant to covenant, and that if there is a so call contradiction it is because the covenants are different.
If you see a “so call contradiction” between this 3 stuffs then you are having a mistake.
Perhaps you must read the bible as a book covenants and not as a whole novel.
That would explain why there are some “so call contraditions”
within the biblie and on the tradition and on the authority.
It will help you to understand that stuffs change from covenant to covenant, and that if there is a so call contradiction it is because the covenants are different.
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
One is having a mistake mostly because one’s thoughts are already influenced by the church a sort of seeing through a colored glasses. Since Jesus believed in OTBible and he said that he had come to fullfill teachings of Torah and not to cancell anything, in that case one remedy is to refer to OTBible for guidance and one will rectify one’s mistake which was previously some sort of wishful.Please don’t mind, it is just a discussion to reach the truth
Thanks
I understand that NTBible does not come from Jesus; it is mostly the working of Church.
A
Athanasiy
Guest
The truth about the Infinite Majesty of God , the truth about God’s Justice and Mercy,
the truth about the personal immortality and the the day of judgment - are the Catholic truths.
- Status