For those who say the Bible is "sufficient" for salvation

[flyersfan1088]

Also, this is unrelated, but are you agreeing that the Bible is more verifiable than other tradition-based Catholic traditions? I’m wondering if somebody has finally answered my question.

I would say that no, the Bible isn’t more verifiable. There, someone finally answered you, and it only took 20 pages of posts to do it. Now pick your jaw up off the floor and I’ll explain.
Catholics have the living Apostolic Tradition as handed down from the Apostles to the bishops they ordained to succeed them. This in turn was handed down through the centuries to the present day, in the same form. Writings from every century verify this. Most non-Catholics have never known the existence of any writings other than the Bible. If they ever do stumble upon patristic writings, it’s usually too late. They’ve been taught all of their life that the Bible is the only reliable record in existence. It’s hard to open a mind that has been shut for it’s entire existence. I’ve realized that I can’t do an adequate job explaining why we hold Tradition in the regard that we do. I will post from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which if you don’t already know is the official, binding teaching of the Catholic Church.

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”:29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally “by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

cont…

 

[flyersfan1088]

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

cont…

 

[flyersfan1088]

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

The supernatural sense of faith

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."56

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58
• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60
• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62

cont…

 

[flyersfan1088]

IN BRIEF

96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 “The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes” (DV 8 § 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

---

29 1 Tim 2:4.
30 cf. Jn 14:6.
31 DV 7; cf. 2 Cor 1:20; 3:16-4:6.
32 DV 7; cf. Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15.
33 DV 7.
34 DV 7.
35 DV 7 § 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,1G 7/1,848; Harvey,2,9.
36 DV 8 § 1.
37 DV 8 § 1.
38 DV 8 § 3.
39 DV 8 § 3; cf. Col 3:16.
40 DV 9.
41 Mt 28:20.
42 DV 9.
43 DV 9.
44 DV 9.
45 DV 10 § 1; cf. 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14 (Vulg.).
46 DV 10 § 1; cf. Acts 2:42 (Greek); Pius XII, apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November 1950:AAS 42 (1950), 756, taken along with the words of St. Cyprian, Epist. 66, 8:CSEL 3/2,733: “The Church is the people united to its Priests, the flock adhering to its Shepherd.”
47 DV 10 § 2.
48 DV 10 para 2.
49 Lk 10:16; cf. LG 20.
50 Cf. Jn 8:31-32.
51 Cf. Vatican Council IS 3016:nexus mysteriorum; LG 25.
52 UR II.
53 Cf. 1 Jn 2:20,27.
54 Cf. Jn 16:13.
55 LG 12; cf. St. Augustine, De praed. sanct. 14,27L 44,980.
56 LG 12; cf. Jude 3.
57 DV 8 § 2; cf. Lk 2:19,51.
58 GS 62 § 7; cf. GS 44 § 2; DV 23; 24; UR 4.
59 DV 8 § 2.
60 DV 8 § 2.
61 St. Gregory the Great, Hom. in Ez. 1,7,8L 76,843D.
62 DV 10 § 3.

 

[flyersfan1088]

One of the problems we all have is we get caught up in endless debates over this teaching or that. We lose sight of the one real question. What did the Church of the Apostles time look like? We can know what it looked like because we have the writings, which as I said earlier have been studied heavily and authenticated. Studied I would venture second only to the Bible itself. Krocker, I don’t know your motivations for visiting this forum, but you seem genuine unlike some of the other drive-by attackers. I believe that if you are seriously looking for THE truth (as we all should be), you will one day find yourself in the Catholic Church.

 

[flyersfan1088]

Name the very first one who did and provide a quote in context to show that.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I’ll enlighten you one point at a time . How does the Immaculate Conception help me attain salvation? Can I attain salvation if I believe Mary had sin, but Jesus didn’t?

One can attain salvation knowing nothing about any Christian revelation and only acting true to one’s conscience if it (one’s conscience) coincides with natural law in very large measure, but the actual probability of that happening is very small both personally (for one who actually IS like that) and for one like that to “happen” (the existence of a person like that happening in time), but it’s only God’s job to either know or care about that.

Your chances of attaining salvation are less if you are DOING less that you could, but once again it’s only God who can or should care about that.

I think you are doing less than you could do to attain salvation, simply because you are limiting yourself to fewer resources for attaining salvation than you should.

This is not an issue of "Do all of what God through His Church tells you to do or you won’t attain salvation!’, but rather that you simply choose to not do some things which He has told you to do to help you.

Also, this is unrelated, but are you agreeing that the Bible is more verifiable than other tradition-based Catholic traditions? I’m wondering if somebody has finally answered my question.

We can both agree that the bible is a “set piece”, that it’s a document that we can agree on, because it was GOD’S CHURCH that created it (I say Catholic and you say Invisible), so that piece of the deposit of faith we agree is more MUTUALLY verifiable (We both agree that it IS verifiable!), which means we only differ as to the “verifiability” of our respective traditions.

Since you don’t accept ANY Catholic traditions as true, as well as not accepting that your traditions ARE your traditions, we don’t have anything agree upon AS verifiable at all.

Catholic traditions ARE VERIFIED as true, simply by being accepted AS traditions by the Church, which is utterly unconvincing to a protestant.

Is the bible more “verifiably true” than Catholic tradition? To a Catholic they are both utterly verified. To a protestant Catholic Traditions are simply NOT verifiable.

So, to a Catholic, the bible is NOT more verifiable than Catholic Tradition. It is simply AS verifiable.

To a protestant the bible is certainly more verifiable than Catholic Tradition, as Catholic Tradition is not verifiable at all.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Great question. They aren’t. But I’m not the one claiming infallibility … you are. So the burden of proof is naturally on you to prove your beliefs, rather than for me to disprove your beliefs. If you cannot prove with absolute certainty that your interpretation is right or someone else’s interpretation is wrong, and you’re okay with not having all the answers, then welcome to protestantism.

We do prove our beliefs as fully as they CAN be proved to the one we are attempting to show “the good news” to. We needn’t successfully PROVE our beliefs, only try to show them to the best of our ability why it is the “good news”.

Just as your beliefs don’t rely on your ability to prove them to a moslem, our beliefs don’t rely on proving anything to you.

You are your own Pope. My Pope has better bathroom fixtures than I do, I imagine.

So, since you admit that your traditions are no more believable than ours, how does one choose one’s religion?

 

[Krocker]

One of the problems we all have is we get caught up in endless debates over this teaching or that. We lose sight of the one real question. What did the Church of the Apostles time look like? We can know what it looked like because we have the writings, which as I said earlier have been studied heavily and authenticated. Studied I would venture second only to the Bible itself. Krocker, I don’t know your motivations for visiting this forum, but you seem genuine unlike some of the other drive-by attackers. I believe that if you are seriously looking for THE truth (as we all should be), you will one day find yourself in the Catholic Church.

Hey, thanks, much appreciated. I’m not trying to convert anybody or attack anybody. In fact, you’d probably be surprised by some of my arguments against Protestants. My background is pretty well split between the two, although admittedly more protestant growing up. I’m married to a “Catholic” now, although our beliefs are pretty similar, so some of you may believe she has excommunicated herself. We have decided to raise our son as a “Christian” with both protestant and catholic influences. We go to protestant and catholic church every sunday. My son was just baptized in a catholic church, but may (if he so chooses) be baptized as an adult in the protestant tradition – and I’m sure some of you disagree with that, but tough. We have our reasons and they were well thought out. We are going to support his CHRISTIANITY without protestant or catholic bashing. We all have a basis for our beliefs and it obviously make some sense or there would be universal agreement.

But with all of that said, I just don’t agree with a good portion of what you’re saying. Don’t hate me for it. Despite what you said about written and oral tradition being equally verifiable as the Bible, that simply isn’t true from an unreligious simply historical prospective (e.g., Homer and Plato are extremely verifiable as real people and real writings, but are a fraction of that applicable to the Bible). You don’t agree and that’s okay, I suspect that has a lot to do with your particular faith, but I wouldn’t hire you as a verifier of historical writings.

I have a concern about the immaculate conception for the reasons I’ve repeatedly stated. I just don’t think that doctrine is verifiable outside of the Church’s declaration and, frankly, you must admit there is no support for it anywhere outside of the Church’s own writings and declarations. Plus, it just doesn’t make genetic sense that Mary “had” to be sinless. But I’ve said all that before too.

I have a problem with infallibility because no man is infallible, that’s the point of the whole “story” from the Adam on. It seems strange to me that Two exceptions would be made – Jesus, who single-handedly changed the world and to which 27 books of the Bible are dedicated, and the Catholic Church … sometimes … based on one possible interpretation of one verse. Infallibility is a HUGE deal and it only makes sense that more coverage would have been given to it. It seems to me that the Catholic Church is putting itself on par with God himself, at least sometimes, and that troubles me. The doctrine of infallibility, in my opinion, is solely based on an interpretation of the Bible – whihch leads to the circular argument that “I’m infallible, because I interpret myself to be infallible.”

While I don’t think transubstantiation matters with respect to whether one is a Christian, I at least question that doctrine. If it’s REALLY the body of Christ, do a DNA test. If it’s REALLY the blood of Christ, do a DNA test or a blood alcohol test. If you really wanted to know the answer, just verify it. And, if it’s the real presence of Christ, but not actually Christ, then how is that any different than protestant beliefs – the real presence of God through the Holy Spirit. And was this what your ECFs believed – that it was the presence of Christ but not actually his flesh and blood? I don’t know, but I have a feeling it wasn’t. And, I know that people freaked out when Jesus said what he said. But how do we know it wasn’t because these guys were a bunch of Jews sitting next to a dude that just hijacked the holy seder dinner? So basically everything that judaism stood for was mandated extinguished by the last supper. That would cause a ruckus as well.

Anyway, I’m sorry to get off on a tangent, but these are some of the concerns I have. I haven’t had anyone give me answers sufficient enough to change my mind. And, no, you don’t have to try here because I’ve probably already heard it. In my opinion, that’s okay. I can’t have all of the answers and I won’t have all of the answers until I’m in glory with Jesus himself. I’ll look you up flyersfan and we can compare notes to see how well we fared down here.

 

[RomanPL]

“I don’t ascribe to sola scriptura, but prima scriptura.”

It’s a fascinating discussion. I didn’t read this entire book, but I just heard on Relevant Radio a reminder:
If the Bible is the only source… where does the Bible say it? Where is it firmly, explicitly pointed out to us that Bible is it?
Sola scriptura or prima scriptura has not foundation unless it is specified. The opposite is specified: scripture and our teaching (Paul).
Chromosomes … are senseless discussions if we don’t have foundation laid.

“Krocker, I don’t know your motivations for visiting this forum, but you seem genuine unlike some of the other drive-by attackers. I believe that if you are seriously looking for THE truth (as we all should be), you will one day find yourself in the Catholic Church.”

It is a good and honest searching you’re doing (as we all should) but don’t forget one thing…the BAD GUY – most intelligent Angel (much more than we are) we’ll not appear with horns and a tale but in a suit with a tie and the briefcase full of arguments – well constructed arguments why we should follow him. It has to look good otherwise no 32000 (and counting) denominations would be created out of only ONE church Jesus established– there is a reason for this division ….

 

[Krocker]

Rightlydivide;3081362:

Well we don’t know who the very first one was, but the earliest we have today is from 348A.D. It is from St. Ephraim, in his collection of Nisibene Hymmns.

“You alone and your Mother
are more beautiful than any others,
For there is no blemish in you,
nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children
can compare in beauty to these?”

The next extant writing comes to us from St. Ambrose of Milan, writing in the year 387A.D.
From his Commentary on Psalm 118

“Come then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”

Doesn’t it concern you even a little bit that it took 300 years for this to be written about? An honest question, no sarcasm.

 

[Krocker]

We do prove our beliefs as fully as they CAN be proved to the one we are attempting to show “the good news” to. We needn’t successfully PROVE our beliefs, only try to show them to the best of our ability why it is the “good news”.

Just as your beliefs don’t rely on your ability to prove them to a moslem, our beliefs don’t rely on proving anything to you.

You are your own Pope. My Pope has better bathroom fixtures than I do, I imagine.

So, since you admit that your traditions are no more believable than ours, how does one choose one’s religion?

That’s a good question and I gave my opinion before, but I took a bit of a beating for it. I choose based on scripture, non-conflicting, verifiable, and reasoned tradition, and conscience. You choose based on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Krocker]

“I don’t ascribe to sola scriptura, but prima scriptura.”

It’s a fascinating discussion. I didn’t read this entire book, but I just heard on Relevant Radio a reminder:
If the Bible is the only source… where does the Bible say it? Where is it firmly, explicitly pointed out to us that Bible is it?
Sola scriptura or prima scriptura has not foundation unless it is specified. The opposite is specified: scripture and our teaching (Paul).
Chromosomes … are senseless discussions if we don’t have foundation laid.

“Krocker, I don’t know your motivations for visiting this forum, but you seem genuine unlike some of the other drive-by attackers. I believe that if you are seriously looking for THE truth (as we all should be), you will one day find yourself in the Catholic Church.”

It is a good and honest searching you’re doing (as we all should) but don’t forget one thing…the BAD GUY – most intelligent Angel (much more than we are) we’ll not appear with horns and a tale but in a suit with a tie and the briefcase full of arguments – well constructed arguments why we should follow him. It has to look good otherwise no 32000 (and counting) denominations would be created out of only ONE church Jesus established– there is a reason for this division ….

I’ve discussed most of this above, but I’ll try to give a condensed version. Prima scriptura can be “proven” on the basis of non-religious historical verification. ANY writing is verified the same way, be it the Bible, church traditions, Plato, or Homer. The Bible is the most verified and verifiable document in the history of the world. It is the only logical place to start. There is no need for it to be specifically stated in the Bible.

The chromosome discussion is imminently reasonable to reject an argument that Mary “had to be” sinless in order to birth a sinless Jesus.

I’m not sure if I should be flattered or upset that you compared me to the devil You’re starting to sound like some of my southern baptist relatives.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
But with all of that said, I just don’t agree with a good portion of what you’re saying. Don’t hate me for it. …

Anyway, I’m sorry to get off on a tangent, but these are some of the concerns I have. I haven’t had anyone give me answers sufficient enough to change my mind. And, no, you don’t have to try here because I’ve probably already heard it. In my opinion, that’s okay. I can’t have all of the answers and I won’t have all of the answers until I’m in glory with Jesus himself. I’ll look you up flyersfan and we can compare notes to see how well we fared down here.

Well, I love 'ya Krocker! Just to make it abundantly clear that I “don’t hate you for it”!

It always amazes me no end how intellectuals get so thoroughly in their own way! I amaze myself continually, as I’m one of those accursed “intellectuals” of which I speak.

All of your objections to the Church (Catholic) are summed up as “intellectual inertia”. Any change in that has to come from “inside”. Even showing you that your claims are no better than the Church’s won’t move you, because they’re just “no better” and not “better”. Why move on equalized dynamic tension?

I think my particular change came when I simply got tired of the wild threshing about of my hyper-technical noisy intellectualism. It served as a great tool for making tools, but it was too damned obnoxious in it’s insistence on mechanizing even that which could not be mechanized. “Mystery” was a dirty word which served only as a provocation to my going into a head-down nose-to-the-grindstone death-march intensity QUEST for “THE solution”, sword blazing!

I’m too old for that creplock! (sic?) I have always known deep inside that there IS real mystery, but I had always felt the need to dig with all my might anyway because “I had time and youthful energy to spare”. That isn’t the case anymore, and I relent to the wisdom of age that youth recognizes but simply can’t bring itself to comply with.

The Church has yet to show itself inconsistent or contradictory to me, though so many Catholics past and present certainly have and do. All other sub-sets of Christianity we (I) know of as non-Catholicism have yet to show themselves as anything BUT inconsistent or contradictory to me.

Like some mythical space-craft from the Star Wars universe, my massive 525.6 Billion Ton mass, as it approached the planet, had to make a decision to go LEFT or RIGHT or hit the ocean and make quite the soggy mess out of the beach resort on the coastline of the Eastern Continent.

Times to choose come when they do. Best to you when your time comes.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

That’s a good question and I gave my opinion before, but I took a bit of a beating for it. I choose based on scripture, non-conflicting, verifiable, and reasoned tradition, and conscience. You choose based on the teachings of the Catholic Church.

That would be correct. And to me the teachings of the Church are based on more than scripture which is the full deposit of faith, perfectly meshing and prayerfully experiential reasoned actions which are tradition, and a well formed conscience based on those traditions (on a REALLY good day!).

I just trust my sources more than yours, and while I can’t see how you CAN trust your sources more than mine, I understand that you do.

 

[Krocker]

Thanks all. I think I’m all done for now. I enjoy these types of discussions (so long as they’re civil). Just one point before I go though, there are 5 billion non-Christians in this world, recent neurological research has allegedly discovered a “God” part of our brain (biologically nurtured to ensure survival – those who believe are less likely to kill others, kill themselves and lead unproductive lives), and our society seems to be as divided now (especially politically) as it ever has been. Maybe this isn’t a bad time to find our substantial collective ground and start having discussions with nonbelievers?

One thing I’ve learned pretty well over the past few years is that there are great Protestant and Catholic christians … and there are terrible Protestant and Catholic christians. Labeling youself one or the other doesn’t ensure your rightness or wrongness. Onward.

 

[paarsurrey]

there are great Protestant and Catholic christians … and there are terrible Protestant and Catholic christians. Labeling youself one or the other doesn’t ensure your rightness or wrongness. Onward.

Hi

There are great Protestant and Catholic christians … and there are terrible Protestant and Catholic christians. Labeling youself one or the other doesn’t ensure your rightness or wrongness. Onward

This is the phenomenon in Hinduism, in Buddhism, in Zoroastrianism, in Judaism, in Christianity and in Islam, there are good and great people in everyone of them and there are terrible people in everyone of them. If good people in all these religions first unite, they could join the united good people in others religions also. Is it not a good thing?

Thanks

 

[whatistruth]

I am amazed that anyone would claim that “Sola Scriptura” is enough for salvation and the only rule of faith. Those poor souls that did not have the New Testament scriptures between A.D.30 and A.D.51 when St.Paul wrote I Thessalonians. This kind of langauage says the Apostles teachings and preaching are not neccessary for salvation. I find it sad that Christ came to die for his Church and there are those who call themselves christians say “we do not need the Church, we have the Scriptures” this is teachings of a modern day Pharisee! I find it confusing when we read the scriptures and St.Paul refers to the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth as he did not say the Scriptures were the Pillar and Foundation of Truth! I am confused with Christianity in America someone please put some sense into the erroneous doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”. The devil is having lots of fun with this unbiblical and unscriptual teaching of Bible alone!

Shalom

I thought I should bring this thread up again to keep the focus of the thread.

 

[flyersfan1088]

flyersfan1088;3082865:

Doesn’t it concern you even a little bit that it took 300 years for this to be written about? An honest question, no sarcasm.

It might seem bothersome at first until you research some other key concepts that we all agree on and how long it took for anything to be written of them. A few examples:

God is eternal - 140A.D. Aristides of Athens

God knows all things - 177A.D. Athenagoras of Athens

The Holy Spirit is God - 213A.D. Tertullian

Jesus was free of original sin - 300A.D. Council of Elvira

 

[flyersfan1088]

If you really wanted to know the answer, just verify it. And, if it’s the real presence of Christ, but not actually Christ, then how is that any different than protestant beliefs – the real presence of God through the Holy Spirit. And was this what your ECFs believed – that it was the presence of Christ but not actually his flesh and blood?

The ECF believed that the substances of bread and wine transformed into body and flesh, leaving no traces of the original bread and wine. There’s the whole topic of “accidents” of bread and wine, but that’s another discussion for another day, as I can tell you’re about ready to wrap up this thread.
I know you’re a lawyer so you’re used to requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes you have to let go of logic and trust God to help you make the leap of faith.
Here’s the story of one test done on the host. Pictures are available on the net if you do a google search.

Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

Ancient Anxanum, the city of the Frentanese, has contained for over twelve centuries the first and greatest Eucharistic Miracle of the Catholic Church. This wondrous Event took place in the 8th century A.D. in the little Church of St. Legontian, as a divine response to a Basilian monk’s doubt about Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist.

During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size.

The Host-Flesh, as can be very distinctly observed today, has the same dimensions as the large host used today in the Latin church; it is light brown and appears rose-colored when lighted from the back.

The Blood is coagulated and has an earthy color resembling the yellow of ochre.

Various ecclesiastical investigation (“Recognitions”) were conducted since 1574.

In 1970-'71 and taken up again partly in 1981 there took place a scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist Prof. Odoardo Linoli, eminent Professor in Anatomy and Pathological Histology and in Chemistry and Clinical Microscopy. He was assisted by Prof. Ruggero Bertelli of the University of Siena.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.