Infallability

[PJM]

=vulcano37214;7277341]You know what amazes me is that the catholics on this forum will use Scripture to try to support their claim that Christ Church is the catholic church, (the above scriptures give no mention of the catholic church or the succession of popes) but when someone on this forum gives scriptural proof to support a biblical doctrine you guys tell them that they are guilty of using sola scripture. The word Church means the called out ones not the catholic church.

My dear friend in Christ;

Sadly your position indicates a signifiant lack of understanding of the Bible.

Please consider these irrefutable, historical FACTS:

1. Bible experts [exegesis] as well as secular historians agree that the bible was completely written [100%] no later than the end of the First Century . AD 100. Some claim the year AD 90. AT MOST that is a mere 67 years after the Death of Christ.
2. The Church was a church Under GRAVE attack by Rome as well as the JEWS, and forced “underground” after the distruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This GREATLY impeded the growth of the Church, and explains Paul’s travels.
3. The Word “Catholic” means: “UNIVERSAL” and could not be applied until sufficient growth had taken place to warrant the name.
4. The Words Protestant, Trinity, and terms like “from Scripture ALONE” also do not appear in the bible, as they too are terms of a furture generations. More Modern application.
5. 1. When the Bible was 100% written 2. When the Complete OT was collected and the books for inclusion was concluded; it was done by MEN, KNOWN today to have been “eary catholics” 3. The entire NT was written BY and precisely BY and FOR Catholics 4. And when the Bible [ALL 73 BOOKS] were Codified and approved by God:** 2 Tim.3:15-17…**note the WORD “ALL” text [all 73 BOOKS] READ JOHN 14: 16-17 and John 17: 14-19 5. This can be verified because there were NO-ZIP-ZERRO other christian churches [even considering the GREAT SCHISM] for another 900 YEARS! And the Protestant Revolutation and KJ Bible were more than 1,400 years later!

So friend, your point is not only mute, it fails to account for basic Biblical and CC completely SUPPORTED by history.

**As to the succession of POPES: **

READ the endings of John chapters 20 and 21; an make yourself aware that NOT ENERYTHING IS PRCISELY EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE [this is even more true of your edited verision].

HOWEVER it is clearly implied by this verse:

Matt.28 Verses 19 to 20 " [Jesus speaking to Peter and the Apostles] “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

**Simple logic applies and this task would have been IMPOSSIBLE durring the LIFE of Peter alone.

**Similarly Matt. 16: 15-19 and the terms “Binding” and Loosing" gave unlimited power of Governance to Peter; then in Matt.18: 18 Jesus extends this to all the Apostles [and as we have just pointed out in **28:19-20; by absolute necessity to accomplish God Mission, to there successors.]

Because we are limited on space I’ll end here; but there is much more evidence I can provide. For example READ: I will point out that Pope Benedict XVI is our 265th CONSECUTIVE POPE in our 2,000 year history. {also proveable].

John 14:16-17 an John 17: 14-19. ONLY the CC has this comitment for God Himself!
Love and prayers friend,
Pat

 

[inkaneer]

You know what amazes me is that the catholics on this forum will use Scripture to try to support their claim that Christ Church is the catholic church, (the above scriptures give no mention of the catholic church or the succession of popes) but when someone on this forum gives scriptural proof to support a biblical doctrine you guys tell them that they are guilty of using sola scripture. The word Church means the called out ones not the catholic church.

Well then give me a Bible verse that supports sola scriptura because I can give you one that blows sola scriptura clear out of the water. That verse is 2 Thess 2:15. That verse has never been repealed and is just as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2.000 yhears ago. The reason we use scripture to rebuke your arguments is because you do not recognize Oral Tradition. Okay, so we go with what you do recognize, the Written Tradition. Doesn’t matter, we’re flexible. We are not confined by the covers of a book. And one more thing, those “called out ones” are called Catholics because there were no protestants before the 16th century.

 

[joe370]

Well then give me a Bible verse that supports sola scriptura because I can give you one that blows sola scriptura clear out of the water. That verse is 2 Thess 2:15. That verse has never been repealed and is just as valid today as it was when Paul first penned it almost 2.000 yhears ago. The reason we use scripture to rebuke your arguments is because you do not recognize Oral Tradition. Okay, so we go with what you do recognize, the Written Tradition. Doesn’t matter, we’re flexible. We are not confined by the covers of a book. And one more thing, those “called out ones” are called Catholics because there were no protestants before the 16th century.

That was the conclusion that I drew as a former non-Catholic. I am not sure what else non-Catholics would have us use, considering the fact that they claim the bible is the Christians final authority, via whose interpretation, I am still not sure. The consensus thus far, that I have deduced is: Sola scriptura advocates believe they have an infallible bible but no one to infallibly interpret the infallible bible. That concept is very confusing to me. If they are right then it seems that the holy spirit is no longer guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, which makes the bible (1 Tim. 3:16 - John 16:13 - John 14:16 - fallible. Many SS advocates believe that doctrinal truth can be known by each and every Christian as they are moved by the holy spirit to interpret scripture, but this can be empirically dis-proven.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Irish, don’t you see what you have said here. You are saying that oral tradition is contained in scripture, but the church and tradition are authorities in addition to scripture. I’m assuming you mean teaching authorities. And if oral tradition is contained in scripture it must be teaching the same thing that scripture is teaching which would validate the principle of sola scriptura.

Please don’t put words in my mouth Richard, I have not implied that Scripture contains all of Sacred Tradition.

I couldn’t validate sola scriptura even if it was a solid doctrine. The fact is, is that it is unbiblical and the validity of sola scriptura, is unfeasible. Your challenge is: to show me where does the Bible teach that only the Bible is the truth of God or what we are supposed to believe from God? And then we can discuses where in the Scripture we can find the rest of the SDA doctrines.

If oral tradition is teaching the same things as scripture, I couldn’t agree more…

Scared Tradition or the Magisterium will not contradict the Sacred Scriptures,

You are saying that I as a Protestant I need to embrace the mass for my salvation?

I am saying outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. Time is short Richard.

Ok, but that would be true of anyone who is teaching/preaching the Gospel message.

No, it would not be the same for anyone whom might be preaching the Gospel. Anyone outside of the Church that Christ established (Matt, 16: 18-19) the same Church that Jesus clearly taught us has the final authority on questions of faith or discipline (Matt 18:17-18) would be preaching/ teaching a false Gospel.

What chapter?

2 Thess. 2 13-14, again please excuse me.

But you said above “None Richard, it is all in Scripture” You were refering to oral tradition. So if you are teaching oral tradition, you are teaching the bible only and this whole question becomes moot.

This argument you have created is ridiculous, as others and I have already stated, Scripture has not encompassed all of Sacred Tradition, nor has Scripture stated such. Please try and answer the question without redirecting the focus or I will have to conclude the obvious, that you have no answer.

Are you saying you would stay in a church even if you thought it was wrong?

Knowing that I am part of the body of Christ that Christ himself has established while on earth, and that she is protected by the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her , has given me solace. Do you have this comfort?

You mean like a building?

Are you serious?

 

[vulcano37214]

According to that logic, no church in the world today, is Christ’s church founded circa AD 33. If you are correct then just pick one that conforms to your set of beliefs and go.

As far as sola scriptura goes, no one SS advocate will give me the universal definition of SS. Thus far I have heard three different interpretations of SS. To believe in SS I first have to know definitively what the practice of SS is, and I don’t, but I keep asking.

Here is a good definition of sola Scriptura from a current reformer.
"First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture–but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means"

 

[pablope]

Here is a good definition of sola Scriptura from a current reformer.
"First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede…Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

**Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).
**
Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means"

*Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture
*

Interesting…so based on this statement above…why did Protestants take out the Deuterocanonical books from the original canon of the OT? By whose authority?

 

[joe370]

Vulcano, you said:

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means"

No book can interpret itself; that is illogical. People interpret and reveal what is written. The bible (the word of God, which is a collection of inerrant books) - cannot reveal anything infallibly. Scripture cannot infallibly interpret scripture - right?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I see you don’t really like lengthy posts so I will keep this one short. The answer to your question is: NO. You find the church that you believe with all your heart soul and mind, is the church founded by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem and you will have found the house of the living God, (where the fullness of Jesus who fills all in all, can be found) - the pillar and foundation of truth, (where the manifold wisdom of God is made known) - the Mystical Body of Christ of which Jesus is the head and savior,

Your answer is NO? If that is the case then you have not answered the original question and that is, What must I/you do to be saved?

 

[inkaneer]

Here is a good definition of sola Scriptura from a current reformer.
"First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture–but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That–no more, no less–is what sola Scriptura means"

I note that you say, "Here is a good definition of sola Scriptura from a current reformer. [Emhasis mine] So my question to you is why has this doctrine changed since first formulated about 500 years ago. Then sola scriptura meant that
ONLY [that’s the sola part] scripture was authoritative. It was a denial of Church authority especially in the Catholic Church from which the protestants rebelled. Now sola scriptura has morphed into something other. And let’s be honest here. We have never claimed that Scripture was a science book or anything of the sort. So that is a red herring. What we have claimed is that, 1, sola scriptura is unbiblical, 2, sola scriptura is a man made tradition of the sixteenth century. 3. the early church operated on Oral Tradition before and after the canon of scripture was decided. 4. scripture clearly states that Jesus imparted authority to the heirarchy [the apostles] of the Church. 5. protestants removed seven books from the OT which were accepted as inspired for over 1100 years. 6. there is nothing in scripture that contradicts the Oral Tradition. 7. Scripture is authoritative but protestant interpretation of it is not. 8. The scriptures were codified into a book that was to be liturgical. It was not to be a self study guide to Christology. 9. the definition of sola scriptura has changed over the years and there is currently several definitions ranging from scripture being the sole infallible rule of faith and practice to being the final authority with other authorities subject to it. 10. Contrary to your definition, the scriptures do not teach that only scripture is sufficient for our salvation and spiritual life.

 

[inkaneer]

Your answer is NO? If that is the case then you have not answered the original question and that is, What must I/you do to be saved?

The short answer you seek is to be saved one must die in the state of God’s grace. That means no unconfessed deadly [mortal] sin.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Please don’t put words in my mouth Richard, I have not implied that Scripture contains all of Sacred Tradition.

I couldn’t validate sola scriptura even if it was a solid doctrine. The fact is, is that it is unbiblical and the validity of sola scriptura, is unfeasible.

I certainly am not putting words in your mouth note this exchange. I said

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
You have not adressed these questions at all. Here they are again.

1. What is the teaching outside of the teaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins do we need for our salvation that is only found in the CC’s oral tradition?

To which you replied

None Richard, it is all in Scripture, the problem is, is that you are choosing to ignore parts of Scripture that you don’t agree with, this results in a false Gospel. Scripture clearly teaches us that both the Church and Tradition in addition to Scripture are authorities.

Now remember what my definition of sola scriptura is? It is simply that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. Now when you answered my question, 1) What is the teaching outside of the teaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins do we need for our salvation that is only found in the CC’s oral tradition., with “None Richard, it is all in Scripture” you are basically agreeing with my definition of SS. Are you now saying that there are some things in your oral tradition that are necessary for our salvation that are not contained in the bible?

Your challenge is: to show me where does the Bible teach that only the Bible is the truth of God or what we are supposed to believe from God? And then we can discuses where in the Scripture we can find the rest of the SDA doctrines.

Why would I do this you have already agreed with my definition of SS?

Time is short Richard.

That it is.

No, it would not be the same for anyone whom might be preaching the Gospel. Anyone outside of the Church that Christ established (Matt, 16: 18-19) the same Church that Jesus clearly taught us has the final authority on questions of faith or discipline (Matt 18:17-18) would be preaching/ teaching a false Gospel.

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that if a person, who is not a Catholic, preaches the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, a message that you yourself have stated “None Richard, it is all in Scripture” That if they are preaching this message from the bible alone, they are preaching a “false Gospel”. If that is so, Irish what do Catholics teach as the true Gospel?

I said

:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
But you said above “None Richard, it is all in Scripture” You were refering to oral tradition. So if you are teaching oral tradition, you are teaching the bible only and this whole question becomes moot.

To which you replied

This argument you have created is ridiculous, as others and I have already stated, Scripture has not encompassed all of Sacred Tradition, nor has Scripture stated such. Please try and answer the question without redirecting the focus or I will have to conclude the obvious, that you have no answer.

Well, first of all, it’s not an argument. I’m merely following your logic. You have agreed with me that all of the Gospel message is in the bible and there is nothing in your oral tradition that is exclusive to that tradition that we need for our salvation. You say “Scripture has not encompassed all of Sacred Tradition” Why would that matter if there is nothing in your oral tradition that we need for salvation? And second. What question?

Knowing that I am part of the body of Christ that Christ himself has established while on earth, and that she is protected by the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her , has given me solace. Do you have this comfort?

Ok, you said

:
Where does the Bible teach that one can break away from the Church if one feels the Church is wrong?

To which I replied

Are you saying you would stay in a church even if you thought it was wrong?

To which you replied above, which has nothing to do with my question. So, let me ask it again. Would you stay in your church even if you felt it was wrong?
And again you said.

:
Where does the Bible teach that the Church is only a spiritual entity of all believers and not also a physical entity?

To which I replied

You mean like a building?

To which you replied

Are you serious?

To which I reply, Yes, What else do you mean by “a physical entity”?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The short answer you seek is to be saved one must die in the state of God’s grace. That means no unconfessed deadly [mortal] sin.

Really? So, you believe that if you die right after you go to confession, you will go to heaven irregardless of whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

 

[inkaneer]

Really? So, you believe that if you die right after you go to confession, you will go to heaven irregardless of whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

Isn’t the idea that someone who does not believe in Jesus Christ actually going to confession somewhere between ridiculous and ludicrous? Think about it. People go to confession because they believe in Jesus Christ and His delegation of authority to forgive sins to the Church as stated so clearly in John’s gospel:

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [John 20:23 RSV]

People don’t go to confession because they do not believe in Jesus. That goes for protestants too. Because of sola scriptura you threw out more than just the baby with the bathwater. You threw out the tub too.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Isn’t the idea that someone who does not believe in Jesus Christ actually going to confession somewhere between ridiculous and ludicrous? Think about it. People go to confession because they believe in Jesus Christ and His delegation of authority to forgive sins to the Church as stated so clearly in John’s gospel:

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [John 20:23 RSV]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous or ludicrous. I believe the reason most people, in the CC, go to confession is because they are told to by the church and they want to avoid the sin that the CC says they incure if they don’t go. I don’t think faith in The saving sacrifice of Jesus is even considered by many.

 

[inkaneer]

I don’t think it’s ridiculous or ludicrous. I believe the reason most people, in the CC, go to confession is because they are told to by the church and they want to avoid the sin that the CC says they incure if they don’t go. I don’t think faith in The saving sacrifice of Jesus is even considered by many.

Well if that is what you believe then may I say that you believe in the ludicrous. The church requires confession once a year but “most people” and you did say “most people” go monthly or more often. The Pope goes daily. Still that begs the question that protestants like to avoid and that is how do protestant denominations deal with sin? Confess to God is the answer I hear most often. But is that scriptural? 1 John 1:9 says:

“9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” [1 John 1:9 RSV]

But John doesn’t say who we are to confess our sins to. This is the same John who records the granting of authority to forgive sin to the Church in John 20:23. So who does one confess sin to if not the Church. But protestants deny they have this authority. Once again we are back to extra ecclesia nolo salus.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
Your saying that Jesus established a church for our salvation? Why then did He die on the cross?

If that is the case,then why do you belong to ANY church Richard,if you have your one way ticket to Heaven? Since Jesus died on the cross?

Why the need then to create thousands of different denominations,if church has nothing to do with salvation?

 

[Irish_Polock]

I certainly am not putting words in your mouth note this exchange. I said

You have Richard , lets review:

1. What is the teaching outside of the teaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins do we need for our salvation that is only found in the CC’s oral tradition?

Which is in itself is a oddly articulated question and implies to me that we have much different definitions of Sacred Tradition. However, I did assumed you had meant What teachings. My response was:

None Richard, it is all in Scripture, the problem is, is that you are choosing to ignore parts of Scripture that you don’t agree with, this results in a false Gospel. Scripture clearly teaches us that both the Church and Tradition in addition to Scripture are authorities.

After which you wrote:

Irish, don’t you see what you have said here. You are saying that oral tradition is contained in scripture, but the church and tradition are authorities in addition to scripture. I’m assuming you mean teaching authorities. And if oral tradition is contained in scripture it must be teaching the same thing that scripture is teaching which would validate the principle of sola scriptura.

Nowhere have I responded with **all ** Sacred Tradition is contained in Scripture, nor does Scripture teach such a thing. You are surely projecting your own ideas into what I have said.

This discussion is getting circler, in a attempt to put us on more of a uniform direction lets get a few things defined.

1. Tradition: Has been given to the Holy Mother Church via Jesus and the apostles, to guide the Church in interpreting Sacred Scripture, and promulgating the Gospel message.

“The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. ”

“They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).”

catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

In relation to your question #1, There is no single salvnic teaching that the Catholic Church has promulgated that is outside of the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles. .There is nothing in Sacred Tradition that will contradict Sacred Scripture, they are of the same substance.

Now remember what my definition of sola scriptura is? It is simply that all the information that we need for our salvation is contained in the bible. Now when you answered my question, 1) What is the teaching outside of the teaching of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins do we need for our salvation that is only found in the CC’s oral tradition., with “None Richard, it is all in Scripture” you are basically agreeing with my definition of SS. Are you now saying that there are some things in your oral tradition that are necessary for our salvation that are not contained in the bible?

Not exactly, I am saying that without the light of Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church guided by the holy spirit, your interpretation of Scripture will be perverted - as is plainly visible in the protestant community. And to have a shot at salvation you need a authoritative interpretation of Scripture in the light of Tradition.

The Church has taught, Sacred Tradition and Scripture are “flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.”

“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”

Why would I do this you have already agreed with my definition of SS?

You are projecting your own ideas into my comments… again.

(cont.)

 

[Irish_Polock]

So, let me get this straight. You are saying that if a person, who is not a Catholic, preaches the Gospel message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified for our sins, a message that you yourself have stated “None Richard, it is all in Scripture” That if they are preaching this message from the bible alone, they are preaching a “false Gospel”. If that is so, Irish what do Catholics teach as the true Gospel?

Taking my comments out of context is getting typical for you Richard. As far as preaching the Gospel without the light of Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium, -this could only lead to heresy and schism - and history has proven this.

Well, first of all, it’s not an argument. I’m merely following your logic. You have agreed with me that all of the Gospel message is in the bible and there is nothing in your oral tradition that is exclusive to that tradition that we need for our salvation. You say “Scripture has not encompassed all of Sacred Tradition” Why would that matter if there is nothing in your oral tradition that we need for salvation? And second. What question?

I hope you do a better job at exegetical works than the job you have done with this discussion. This would be another instance of projection, I have not agreed with you on the subject of Scripture and Tradition. Again the seems to be your misunderstanding of what Sacred Tradition actually is.

To which you replied above, which has nothing to do with my question. So, let me ask it again. Would you stay in your church even if you felt it was wrong?

I feel I am the Churches biggest Critic Richard, I would be the first to admit that all is not well within the Church. Although, this is the Church that Christ established, and while all might not be perfect it is still the ONLY true Church, and the obedience that I try to have to the teaching of Christ and his Apostles has and will keep me within her arms. Whether I feel she is wrong or not.

To which I reply, Yes, What else do you mean by “a physical entity”?

A visible Church, a hierarchal Church, not a invisible Church made up of a collage of different ecclesiastical communities with patchwork doctrines that range from post-millennialism to soul sleep.

Hopefully I have clarified these subjects enough to get us in a forward motion and we can stop this insane critiquing of each of our statements.

 

[joe370]

Your answer is NO? If that is the case then you have not answered the original question and that is, What must I/you do to be saved?

Of course we are saved by Jesus; we are saved by His sacrifice. Also, belonging to Jesus’ church is necessary according to the bible. You find the church that you believe with all your heart soul and mind, is the church founded by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem and you will have found the house of the living God, (where the fullness of Jesus who fills all in all, can be found) - the pillar and foundation of truth, (where the manifold wisdom of God is made known) - the Mystical Body of Christ **of which Jesus is the head and savior. **

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Well if that is what you believe then may I say that you believe in the ludicrous. The church requires confession once a year but “most people” and you did say “most people” go monthly or more often. The Pope goes daily. Still that begs the question that protestants like to avoid and that is how do protestant denominations deal with sin? Confess to God is the answer I hear most often. But is that scriptural? 1 John 1:9 says:

“9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” [1 John 1:9 RSV]

But John doesn’t say who we are to confess our sins to. This is the same John who records the granting of authority to forgive sin to the Church in John 20:23. So who does one confess sin to if not the Church. But protestants deny they have this authority. Once again we are back to extra ecclesia nolo salus.

Here’s 1Jn.1 in it’s entirety

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us

3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

5This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This chapter is all about fellowship. John starts out by talking of the fellowship that he and the other apostles injoyed with Jesus and he says that we also can have that fellowship. Verse 7 says that we are cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus and v. 9 says that He forgives our sins, that He cleanses us from unrighteousness. There is absolutely no implication that we confess to anyone but Him.

Rom.14
11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.