I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesusFreak16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
kerbear:
exrc…

You show by your arguments that if you indeed were Roman Catholic at one time, then you must have been poorly catechised - because your view of what the Church teaches is basically a fiction of your own imagination, or one you culled from the writing of Jack Chick or any number of other anti-Catholic “apologists”.

If you are going to argue against the teachings of the Church then please take the time to learn what the teachings of the Church actually are. There are a good number of Catholics on these Forums that are well catechised and do know what the Church teaches, and to them your arguments are nothing but the ranting of a anti-Catholic fundamentalist railing against a church that doesn’t exist, except perhaps in your own imagination.

As to what I would say to Christ if I was to stand before him?

“Dear Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.”
Your response does not answer the question!!!

The question is:
**If you were to die and were standing before God and He asked you, “Why should I let you into My heaven” WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? Is it really that hard to understand??? ******


In Christ Alone,

Mike
 
xrc said:
Your response does not answer the question!!!

The question is:
If you were to die and were standing before God and He asked you, "Why should I let you into My heaven
" WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? Is it really that hard to understand???

In Christ Alone,

Mike

Mike, you do not have the right to ask anyone that! Just who do you think you are? You are not our judge! That is a loaded question and you know it is! Whatever answer anyone gives you’ll surely pounce with some smug reply about how you are already saved and have a one way ticket to Heaven!

BALDERDASH! IF YOU COMMITTED ALL 7 DEADLY SINS WOULD YOU STILL BE AUTOMATICALLY SAVED?

**Mike, pride goeth before a fall!:banghead: **



 
40.png
xrc:
V.63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words I speak are Spirit, it is they that are life.” Nothing could be clearer it is not literal but figurative, he used a natural example to illustrate a spiritual truth. We have seen that “to eat” is “to believe,” and that the giving of his flesh refers to his death on the cross. And so, “to eat his flesh” or “to drink his blood” would be to trust in the sacrifice of his life. It is to rely upon his death on the cross as the payment for our sins. This interpretation fits the context of the whole teaching. By the sacrifice of his life, Jesus became the Savior of the world, he is the source of eternal life not by the Eucharist. The Savior is a person, salvation is not a thing that was created. This is the intent of the discourse.
AMEN Mike! John 6 has nothing to do with Rome’s eucharistic Mass. To teach that it does utterly destroys the spiritual principle Christ communicated to the unbelieving crowd concerning HIMSELF as the “true bread of life.”

Just a couple days prior Jesus was in Jerusalem and healed a man of a thirty-eight year sickness. He was persecuted because He healed him on the Sabbath and called God His own unique Father, thus making Himself equal with God (Jn. 5:18). And in the course of these things Jesus said to them:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (Jn. 5:24).

“For just as the Father has life in Himself, He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself” (Jn. 5:26).

It is what Jesus says here, regarding LIFE in Himself, that is the key to understanding John 6. In John 5:40 Christ says to the unbelieving crowd, *"…and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life" *(John chapters 5 & 6 clearly reveal that to *“come to” *Him means to “believe” in Him).

The unbelieving crowd at Capernaum, whom the day prior were fed a meal from only five barley loaves and two fish, challenged Him by comparing Him to Moses who fed them not just one meal but “manna” for 40 years in the wilderness (Jn. 6:30-32). But Jesus reminded them that though their fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, nevertheless, they died there in the wilderness (Jn. 6:49). That “bread” did not give them true life. But Jesus points to Himself and figuratively calls Himself *“the Bread of life,” *the “*true bread” *that comes down out of heaven (vs. 32), and that "he who comes to Me shall not hunger (spiritually), *and he who believes in Me shall never thirst" *(spiritually, Jn. 6:35).

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, and BELIEVES IN HIM, may HAVE ETERNAL LIFE; and I Myself will raise Him up on the last day.” “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes HAS ETERNAL LIFE. I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:47-48).

The point Jesus was figuratively making in John 6, in calling Himself “the bread of life,” is just as life from the manna was transferred to those who ate it in the wilderness, the LIFE in Christ, resurrected, is transferred to all those who BELIEVE in Him. But unlike the “life” from the manna, which could not prevent the ancients from dying, the “LIFE” of Christ that is transferred to the BELIEVER is ETERNAL and, *“he who eats of this bread shall live forever” *(see 6:58; cf. Jn. 5:24; 11:25). For this reason Jesus explained to His disciples, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing (i.e., physically eating Him); *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" *(Jn. 6:63).

It is complete distortion to interpret John 6 as referring to the RC eucharistic Mass. Christ in no way was instituting a re-presentation of His future sacrifice, nor endorsing ritualistic cannibalism (an orthodox Jew could never demand such a thing). Tragically, this error began to develop quite early in Church history. And it’s through the propagation of error of this kind in the Church that the RC is kept from understanding the Biblical truth of eternal life in Christ.
 
Mike,

I guess you just don’t get it. Let me give you a Scripture to consider:

“When the Son of Man comes … He will sit on His throne in Heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. … Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come … for I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I needed clothes and you clothed Me, I was sick and you looked after Me, I was in prison and you came to visit Me.’ … Then He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me … for I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite Me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after Me.’ … ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help You?’ … ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matt. 25:31-46).
 
40.png
xrc:
**The Roman Catholic Church DID NOT give us the bible!!! **

Doesn’t the RCC teach that the bible is the word of God or has something changed recently? If you spent more time reading the bible and less listening to the traditions of men you might learn something!

2 Peter 1: 20 states, " Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture CAME ABOUT
by the prophets own interpretation…" Can you see the distinction?

**You’re still dodging the question! I guess you’ll probably have to ask your priest how to answer! **

How about this one: How do you intend to get to heaven?

In Christ Alone,

Mike
]

Yes, I know the Bible is the word of God! Don’t insult my intelligence! You know exactly what I meant in that post, but as usual you had to take what I said out of context!

**What are you going to tell us next, that is was Protestants who compiled the Bible, or did it fall out of the sky or what?:eek: **
 
40.png
Ozzie:
It is complete distortion to interpret John 6 as referring to the RC eucharistic Mass. Christ in no way was instituting a re-presentation of His future sacrifice, nor endorsing ritualistic cannibalism (an orthodox Jew could never demand such a thing). Tragically, this error began to develop quite early in Church history. And it’s through the propagation of error of this kind in the Church that the RC is kept from understanding the Biblical truth of eternal life in Christ.
Ozzie -

I knew you couldn’t stay away for long. I sense you really didn’t like being called “smarty pants” when I (correctly) pointed out that Christ said “it is finished” on Good Friday and that Catholics can therefore proudly display there Crucifixes. sorry if I hurt your feelings. 😛
I would agree with your comment above - sort of. It began quite early alright - starting with John himself and his understudy St Ignatious. Pretty amazing that Ignatious, after studying for over 30 years with John, would have the same fallacious distorted interpretation of the Eucharist as the Catholic Church. Good thing we have you here to keep it all together. 😉

Phil
 
xrc,

I will say this as gently as I can and I hope you do not take offense. Since you entered this thread you have been unneccessarily contentious and you have not remained on a single topic long enough for anyone to answer in a give and take fashion. If you wish to dialogue then you must attempt to do so in an orderly and reasoned fashion. If you are simply here to take a shot gun approach you will appear to be engaging in nothing more than biblically illiterate heckling.

You posed a hypothetical question about what a Catholic would say to the Lord upon their death as if Jesus would actually ask us why He should let us into heaven. Before I answer I wish to comment on the question. The question has no bearing on the judgment of God and is nothing more than a ploy to criticize any and all answers that might differ from your own. I personally find questions like this to be silly and of little value.

Now let’s suppose that your hypothetical question had some sort of merit and deserves a “hypothetical” answer. A Catholic might reasonably answer in any number of ways but I think that the following might be a start: “My dear and precious Lord, I am nothing without your grace. You blessed me with your grace while I lived on earth. You died for me upon the cross. You came in the flesh for my salvation. Nothing I have done merits this sacrifice which you made on my behalf to reconcile me to the Father. I throw myself upon your mercy as I have always done. I love you Lord with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength and I love my brother as myself. None of this is by me Lord. It has all been accomplished by your grace. It is all just as you promised. Amen.”
 
Ozzie said:
AMEN Mike! John 6 has nothing to do with Rome’s eucharistic Mass. To teach that it does utterly destroys the spiritual principle Christ communicated to the unbelieving crowd concerning HIMSELF as the “true bread of life.”

Just a couple days prior Jesus was in Jerusalem and healed a man of a thirty-eight year sickness. He was persecuted because He healed him on the Sabbath and called God His own unique Father, thus making Himself equal with God (Jn. 5:18). And in the course of these things Jesus said to them:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (Jn. 5:24).

“For just as the Father has life in Himself, He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself” (Jn. 5:26).

It is what Jesus says here, regarding LIFE in Himself, that is the key to understanding John 6. In John 5:40 Christ says to the unbelieving crowd, *"…and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life" *(John chapters 5 & 6 clearly reveal that to *“come to” *Him means to “believe” in Him).

The unbelieving crowd at Capernaum, whom the day prior were fed a meal from only five barley loaves and two fish, challenged Him by comparing Him to Moses who fed them not just one meal but “manna” for 40 years in the wilderness (Jn. 6:30-32). But Jesus reminded them that though their fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, nevertheless, they died there in the wilderness (Jn. 6:49). That “bread” did not give them true life. But Jesus points to Himself and figuratively calls Himself *“the Bread of life,” *the “*true bread” *that comes down out of heaven (vs. 32), and that "he who comes to Me shall not hunger (spiritually), *and he who believes in Me shall never thirst" *(spiritually, Jn. 6:35).

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son, and BELIEVES IN HIM, may HAVE ETERNAL LIFE; and I Myself will raise Him up on the last day.” “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes HAS ETERNAL LIFE. I am the bread of life” (Jn. 6:47-48).

The point Jesus was figuratively making in John 6, in calling Himself “the bread of life,” is just as life from the manna was transferred to those who ate it in the wilderness, the LIFE in Christ, resurrected, is transferred to all those who BELIEVE in Him. But unlike the “life” from the manna, which could not prevent the ancients from dying, the “LIFE” of Christ that is transferred to the BELIEVER is ETERNAL and, *“he who eats of this bread shall live forever” *(see 6:58; cf. Jn. 5:24; 11:25). For this reason Jesus explained to His disciples, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing (i.e., physically eating Him); *the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" *(Jn. 6:63).

It is complete distortion to interpret John 6 as referring to the RC eucharistic Mass. Christ in no way was instituting a re-presentation of His future sacrifice, nor endorsing ritualistic cannibalism (an orthodox Jew could never demand such a thing). Tragically, this error began to develop quite early in Church history. And it’s through the propagation of error of this kind in the Church that the RC is kept from understanding the Biblical truth of eternal life in Christ.

Ozzie,

I believe we have discussed much of this earlier and your position has already been soundly refuted. If you choose to hold a position contrary to what Christianity held until sometime after the reformation then that is your choice, but it is hardly the biblical one. You have merely provided your own interpretation and not that of the Church which is the bride of Christ. You never take anything to the Church. You are as I pointed out in an earlier post; you are your own church, your own apostle, and your own pope.

You not only differ on the issue of the Eucharist but you differ on a great many other things that are universally held by Christians everywhere. Anyone that believes, as you do, that faith and grace are not gifts is setting themselves against the bible, the church, and apostolic tradition and teaching. You have made yourself the ultimate authority.
 
40.png
kerbear:
exrc…

I also wanted to say that I would not want to make a criticism of you without taking the opportunity to point you in the right direction.

I would recommend you read 2 books to find out what the Church really teaches on these issues:

The Salvation Controversy by Jimmy Akin
and
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

If you want, I will even send them to you - just send me a private message with an address.

If you respond to me on these Forums and I don’t get back to you right away, please forgive me as I am on rather infrequently
Kerbear, I think you’re wasting your time! These people aren’t on this forum because they want to learn anything about the Church. They’re just trying to prove to us that everything that we believe is a lie and that they and only they have the true interpretation of scripture!
 
To all the Protestants on this thread:

**I am sick and tired of people who come to this site simply to try to prove to us that everything that we believe is wrong. I’m fed up with your spouting umpteenth quotes from scripture and taking anything we try to say out of context. **

What makes you all think that you know more about sacred scripture than the Church which has been here over 2000 years? What makes you think that YOUR interpretation is the correct one???

If you’re trying to convert me, you’ve failed! All your posts come through as smug, self-righteous, full of self importance, arrogance and pride! I’m sorry if I offend anyone but I’ve had enough of your sanctimonious twaddle. Your posts are enough to gag a maggot and I’ve read them ad nauseam! Enough!

If I was not a member of any religion and was looking for one to join and met anyone like the likes of you, I’d run the other way! No wonder there are people out there who call Christians in general hypocrites! Now I understand why. I wouldn’t join your brand of “Christianity” for love or money!

In my humble opinion, what you all need is an extra large dose of humility!

Oh, by the way, I love the Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ more than ever!

And now I’ll wish you all A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR!


:amen:
 
40.png
Philthy:
Ozzie -

I knew you couldn’t stay away for long. I sense you really didn’t like being called “smarty pants” when I (correctly) pointed out that Christ said “it is finished” on Good Friday and that Catholics can therefore proudly display there Crucifixes. sorry if I hurt your feelings. :pSounds like you’re glad to have me back! Nope, “stick and stones…” Of course Jesus said “it is finished” on the cross. That was my whole point. There on the cross HE FINISHED the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation…“once for all.” No more sacrifice is ever required!! That’s why a vacant cross is a better symbol than a crucifix. “The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty” (see Rom. 4:25-5:1-2). “It is FINISHED.” You can add nothing to it, Phil, nor can you subtract from it, or you are quilty of violating it. And you must accept His FINISHED work by faith.
I only came back because I saw xrc’s excellent posts and wanted to give him some support. He was the only one making any kind sense on this thread anymore.

I would agree with your comment above - sort of. It began quite early alright - starting with John himself and his understudy St Ignatious. Pretty amazing that Ignatious, after studying for over 30 years with John, would have the same fallacious distorted interpretation of the Eucharist as the Catholic Church. Good thing we have you here to keep it all together. 😉

PhilWhich proves you can not completely trust the words of men but only the immutable, written Word of God as the foundation of our faith and practice.

May this New Year bring you into complete trust in Christ alone by faith alone.
 
40.png
Pax:
Ozzie, I believe we have discussed much of this earlier and your position has already been soundly refuted.
Nope, my position was never “soundly refuted,” by you, just poorly disputed.
If you choose to hold a position contrary to what Christianity held until sometime after the reformation then that is your choice, but it is hardly the biblical one.
To the contrary, my post(s) demonstrates a very Biblical postion.
You never take anything to the Church. You are as I pointed out in an earlier post; you are your own church, your own apostle, and your own pope.
I believe in the holy Catholic (universal) Church Christ has been building since Pentecost, of which I am part. I believe all the Apostolic teachings as revealed in God’s immutable, witten Word. The position of “Pope,” however, means nothing to me. It’s not Biblical.
Anyone that believes, as you do, that faith and grace are not gifts is setting themselves against the bible, the church, and apostolic tradition and teaching. You have made yourself the ultimate authority.
No my authority is the immutable, written Word of God. And according to Scripture, faith is a personal response to the Gospel message and grace the means by which God forever saves those who BY FAITH receive (personally believe) the “good news” message concerning Jesus Christ: "For BY grace you have been saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves; it (salvation) *is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no man should boast…" *(Eph. 2:8-9).

After all these posts we must still go back to the basic, Biblical message for truth!
 
40.png
Ozzie:
I believe all the Apostolic teachings as revealed in God’s immutable, witten Word. The position of “Pope,” however, means nothing to me. It’s not Biblical.No my authority is the immutable, written Word of God.
According to Meriam-Webster this is the definition of Apostolic

“of or relating to a succession of spiritual authority from the apostles held (as by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox) to be perpetuated by successive ordinations of bishops and to be necessary for valid sacraments and orders”

You cannot believe in Apostolic teachings if you do not believe there is is a succession of authority. You believe in some teaching but it is not Apostolic.

If you believe in Apostolic teaching you believe in spiritual authority being passed validly from bishop to bishop. This is the Catholic Church.

Please state what teachings you believe … I guess they would have to be the non-Apostolic ones.
 
40.png
ncgolf:
According to Meriam-Webster this is the definition of Apostolic

“of or relating to a succession of spiritual authority from the apostles held (as by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox) to be perpetuated by successive ordinations of bishops and to be necessary for valid sacraments and orders”

You cannot believe in Apostolic teachings if you do not believe there is is a succession of authority. You believe in some teaching but it is not Apostolic.

If you believe in Apostolic teaching you believe in spiritual authority being passed validly from bishop to bishop. This is the Catholic Church.

Please state what teachings you believe … I guess they would have to be the non-Apostolic ones.
My Merriam-Webster defines it as 1"of or relating to an Apostle or to the New Testament Apostles." This is their number one definition and how I used the word. And I limited it to their teachings as revealed in the New Testament. What is it you don’t understand? Nowhere do the N.T. writers speak of any kind of Apostolic succession. To the contrary, the Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Jesus Christ being the corner stone (Eph. 2:21). A “foundation” is not continually built, it is *built upon. *Neither Paul, Peter or John said anything about “Apostolic succession.” “Elders,” yes, Deacons, yes, but no Apostolic succession. That’s a teaching (tradition) of men. Self-serving as it is.
 
40.png
Ozzie:
So the thread still continues. No, we do not believe in post-apostolic revelation. The Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Christ Jesus being the corner stone (see Eph. 2:20-22; 3:3-6, 9). That’s one of the basic reasons we can’t accept “faiths” like Mormonism or Islam. I saw this post on another thread, thought you people would be interested:

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth." St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).

“We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem” (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

“Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time. Glory be to Him, forever and ever, Amen.” - St. Clement of Rome (Letter to the Corinthians, par. 32)

“Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ.” - St. Basil the Great (Homily on Humility, PG 31.532; TFoTC vol. 9, p. 479)

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)

“For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law.” - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651).
I replied to this on another thread so I will do so here.
 
**“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)

**“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic Tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” St. Athanasius(Festal Letters 2: 29 [A.D. 330]).

“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

“[Paul commands:] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2: 15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a Tradition? Seek no further” St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on 2 Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
 
Cont.

“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.” Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.” St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce the [Christian] message to a mere term” St. Basil the Great (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)

“[Not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic Tradition, as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” St. Augustine (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
 
Cont.

"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (First Corinthians, Homily 20, PG 61.164)

First off, this is not located in his homily on First Corinthians. It is located in his homily on Galatians chapter three. The full quote is below:

“Further, they were possessed with another apprehension; it was written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them.” (Deut. xxvii: 26.) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed. They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered . to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, “In thee shall all nations be blessed,” (Gen. xii: 4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law;”

This in now way disagrees with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere in Catholic teaching is anyone justified by the Law.

CCC states in section 1992, "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in** Baptism**, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.”

In this John Chrysostom is agreed:

“No one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth that comes through baptism : by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]” (The Priesthood 3:5–6 [A.D. 387]).
 
Finally:

"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)

Here is the full quote:

“Ver. 14. “Not giving heed,” he says, “to Jewish fables.”

The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.”

This again should be taken in context. Chrysostom does not disagree with the historical view on faith as I have stated before.
 
40.png
Ozzie:
Sounds like you’re glad to have me back! Nope, “stick and stones…” Of course Jesus said “it is finished” on the cross. That was my whole point. There on the cross HE FINISHED the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation…“once for all.” No more sacrifice is ever required!! That’s why a vacant cross is a better symbol than a crucifix. “The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty” (see Rom. 4:25-5:1-2). “It is FINISHED.” You can add nothing to it, Phil, nor can you subtract from it, or you are quilty of violating it. And you must accept His FINISHED work by faith.
I only came back because I saw xrc’s excellent posts and wanted to give him some support. He was the only one making any kind sense on this thread anymore.Which proves you can not completely trust the words of men but only the immutable, written Word of God as the foundation of our faith and practice.

May this New Year bring you into complete trust in Christ alone by faith alone.
**As to your remarks about xrc’s excellent posts and your complete trust in Christ alone by faith alone, I have only one thing to say: BALONEY!:rotfl: 😃 **

Have a wonderful New Year!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top