Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?

[guanophore]

Where does your church define Sacred Tradition like this?

Acts 9:2
if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women,(persons living as Christians)

Acts 18:25
25 He had been instructed in **the way **of the Lord;

Acts 19:8-9
9 but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyran’nus.

(look, ja4! You are not the first stubborn person to speak evil about the Way!)

" About that time there arose no little stir concerning the way." Acts 19:23

Acts 24:14
14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, **believing everything laid down **by the law or written in the prophets."

(This is why we say that Sacred Tradition comprises “everything that was laid down”)

22 But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lys’ias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.” Acts 24:22

You keep amazing me. Is it not true your church desparatly wants to claim all its doctrines and pracitces are based on the Scriptures? Does it not claim all of their teachings and practices are based on them? If the answer is yes, then you do have communions that are “bible based”.

No, none of the Apostolic communions are “bible based”. They all received the Teachings of Jesus directly from the Apostles and their successors before the NT was written. The Scriptures reflect these doctrines and support them, but they are not the Source. Jesus is the Source.

How are the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures i.e. NT different than the His teachings that supposedly preceded the NT?

It is not the content so much as how it is to be applied. For instance, we believe when He was saying that God is the God of the living, and that those that come to Him NEVER DIE that He was teaching us that the souls of the saints are alive in heaven.

 I separate myself from institutions that are not faithful to the Scriptures.

At least you are taking responsibility and not blaming your actions on anyone else.

And your church teaches far more than the apostles ever did. Just look at the marian doctrines, purgatory, treasury of merit to name a few that were totally unknown to the apostles.

I am glad that you can recognize that there is much more to the Christian life than what you can find in your bible. The truth is that you don’t really know what they taught, apart from what the Catholic Church has given you in the Holy Scripture.

What is the context in which this verse appears? What is the subject matter?

Jesus is making reference to a state in life, similar to the the state of permanent marriage vows, where one chooses to relinquish the pleasures of the married state in order to better serve the Kingdom of God.

I would not use the term “gift” as much as self-control. If that person has it then he need not marry. Paul does indicate that for him not being married is best but he does not mandate that for everyone else.

I got a news flash for you. People are not able to have any self control without the HS, which is a gift of God. Chastity, the gift of being able to manage one’s sexual urges according to the will of God, cannot be achieved or maintained without the grace of God. It is ALL gift.

The Catholic Church does not mandate celibacy for anyone either. But priests and bishops are chosen from those who feel so called.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3442839]
justasking4
How are the teachings of Christ in the Scriptures i.e. NT different than the His teachings that supposedly preceded the NT?

jmcrae
The teachings we find recorded in Scripture are a subset of the teachings that Christ gave to His Church. Not everything was written down. Not everything could be written down.

If its not written down this would explain how catholics would then be forced to believe things that there leaders tell them to believe even when there is no evidence for it. This sheds some light on the pope in 1950 who proclaimed Mary was assumed into heaven without any evidence for this. Your authority is enough to make you believe. Correct?

jmcrae
For example, how would you write down the procedure for hearing Confessions, or the procedure for saying Mass? It is by watching and listening to these things that we learn how to do them. Reading a book about them can give us an idea of what to expect, but it’s nothing like the real experience of it

One thing i notice with catholics that i have encountered here and elsewhere is that they don’t like to look too deeply at the foundation of their church’ claims. I don’t blame them in light of what you say here. I wouldn’t want to either with this kind of reasoning…

Quote:justasking4
And your church teaches far more than the apostles ever did. Just look at the marian doctrines, purgatory, treasury of merit to name a few that were totally unknown to the apostles.

jmcrae
They were very well known to the Apostles;

You have no evidence at all for this assertion. You can claim Holy Tradition but you have no evidence that they knew anything about these doctrines.

even in the Book of Acts we see the use of relics, where St. Paul’s handkerchief and St. Peter’s shadow had the ability to heal people,

These things are not relics. Here is what relic means:something from dead holy person: something that is kept and venerated because it once belonged to a saint, martyr, or religious leader, especially a part of his or her body
In the case of Peter and Paul you don’t have something from a dead person.

and the history of that time shows us people praying to the dead martyrs in Heaven asking for their prayers,

Does this mean this is true because some people pray to the dead?

and we see people praying for the dead Christians who did not become martyrs, in exactly the same way that the Maccabeans did - and the Protoevangelium of James, which is a book about Mary and her many virtues and attributes, was also being written and circulated very shortly after that time - they knew the Marian doctrines, for sure!

Its my understanding that the apochyra work of the Protoevangelium of James was condemned by a pope and catholics are not even to read such literature. Here is a quote about this kind of literature:
“In 494 to 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree entitled Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocryphis. This decree officially set forth the writings which were considered to be canonical and those which were apocryphal and were to be rejected. He gives a list of apocryphal writings and makes the following statement regarding them:
The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics (New Testament Apocrypha, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed. (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1991), p. 38).
In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble. And he places the Transitus literature in the same category as the heretics and writings of Arius, Simon Magus, Marcion, Apollinaris, Valentinus and Pelagius.”

I don’t see how it can get much stronger against Protoevangelium of James which is considered heretical.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3442839]
Originally Posted by justasking4
You keep amazing me. Is it not true your church desparatly wants to claim all its doctrines and pracitces are based on the Scriptures? Does it not claim all of their teachings and practices are based on them?
If the answer is yes, then you do have communions that are “bible based”.

jmcrae
The answer is “no.” (This has been explained to you many times, before. You express “shock” every single time, too.)

However, at the risk of raising your blood pressure yet again, I will explain it to you again:

The Bible came out of the Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition came first (it was given by Jesus to the Apostles who in turn passed it to us, and in the late 300s AD they came up with the idea of including New Testament books in the Bible).Not the other way around. The Bible is a product of the Holy Tradition, just

I am still shocked— that anyone who claims to believe in Christ would say such a thing like this. Thanks for the clarification since i now have a clearer picture where roman catholics are coming from.
If what you say here is true, then there are far more serious problems in the catholic church than i suspected. For one the OT preceded Jesus and the church. Secondly, if i understand you correctly it was Holy Tradition (whatever that is— i was not able to find the term in the catechism) is the source of the NT and not God. I must be wrong on this…

like the Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Marriage, Holy Orders (diaconate, priesthood, episcopate), Reconciliation (aka Confession), and Anointing of the Sick), and just like many other things that you see being done at Catholic Churches and in the homes of Catholics.

What is your defintion of a sacrament?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3443639]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does your church define Sacred Tradition like this?

guanophore
Acts 9:2
if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women,(persons living as Christians)

Acts 18:25
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord;

Acts 19:8-9
9 but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyran’nus.

(look, ja4! You are not the first stubborn person to speak evil about the Way!)

" About that time there arose no little stir concerning the way." Acts 19:23

Acts 24:14
14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets."

(This is why we say that Sacred Tradition comprises “everything that was laid down”)

22 But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lys’ias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.” Acts 24:22

I’m still confused. Where does it say in these passages anything about Sacred Tradiition?
Secondly, am i to assume “the Way” was really roman catholicism with all its doctrines and practices is what is meant by the term?

 

[jmcrae]

I am still shocked— that anyone who claims to believe in Christ would say such a thing like this. Thanks for the clarification since i now have a clearer picture where roman catholics are coming from.

You say this every single time. What happens with you? Do you forget everything you ever knew, once a week? Is that why you continually ask the same questions, and are continually “shocked” at the answers?

If what you say here is true, then there are far more serious problems in the catholic church than i suspected.

Just like last week at around this time.

For one the OT preceded Jesus and the church.

The Old Covenant preceded the New Covenant, but the Old Testament Scriptures were officially included into the Christian Bible at the same time as the New Testament Scriptures.

Secondly, if i understand you correctly it was Holy Tradition (whatever that is— i was not able to find the term in the catechism) is the source of the NT and not God. I must be wrong on this…

The Holy Tradition is what God gave us. The Scriptures are the portion of the Holy Tradition that got written down, as part of the passing on of the Tradition to the following generations.

What is your defintion of a sacrament?

A Sacrament is a ritual action that was instituted by Christ, that actually is and/or actually does the thing that it signifies.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3444064]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I am still shocked— that anyone who claims to believe in Christ would say such a thing like this. Thanks for the clarification since i now have a clearer picture where roman catholics are coming from.

jmcrae
You say this every single time. What happens with you? Do you forget everything you ever knew, once a week? Is that why you continually ask the same questions, and are continually “shocked” at the answers?

Forgive me i don’t have a very large vocabulary like you and others have. My memory is not all that good. :bowdown:

Quote:
If what you say here is true, then there are far more serious problems in the catholic church than i suspected.

jmcrae
Just like last week at around this time.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Quote: justasking4
For one the OT preceded Jesus and the church.

jmcrae
The Old Covenant preceded the New Covenant, but the Old Testament Scriptures were officially included into the Christian Bible at the same time as the New Testament Scriptures.

They were sacred Scritpure before the 2 testaments were combined. The church had nothing to do in making them inspired-inerrant.

Quote: justasking4
Secondly, if i understand you correctly it was Holy Tradition (whatever that is— i was not able to find the term in the catechism) is the source of the NT and not God. I must be wrong on this…

jmcrae
The Holy Tradition is what God gave us. The Scriptures are the portion of the Holy Tradition that got written down, as part of the passing on of the Tradition to the following generations.

Is this Holy Tradition the same as oral tradition?

Quote:justasking4
What is your defintion of a sacrament?
jmcrae
A Sacrament is a ritual action that was instituted by Christ, that actually is and/or actually does the thing that it signifies.

 

[Lampo]

I’m beginning to see JA4 as comical. Is that wrong of me?

 

[jmcrae]

Forgive me i don’t have a very large vocabulary like you and others have. My memory is not all that good. :bowdown:

And yet, you presume to teach us about our errors.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

This is another of your statements that you repeat all the time. You are always just now discovering that the Catholic Faith is in deeper trouble (according to your way of thinking) than you had ever thought possible.

They were sacred Scritpure before the 2 testaments were combined. The church had nothing to do in making them inspired-inerrant.

We know that they are inspired and inerrant because the Church teaches us that they are. It is God who told the Church, and then the Church tells us. It is the Church who put them into the Bible, and it is the Catholic Church’s Pope who made the infallible declaration that these books are the books that make up the Bible, and no others.

Is this Holy Tradition the same as oral tradition?

The Holy Tradition is an oral tradition that comes from God.

There are other oral traditions that don’t come from God, of course, but they aren’t promulgated by the Church in any official capacity.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m beginning to see JA4 as comical. Is that wrong of me?

I quit taking him seriously a long time ago. I guess we both need to go to Confession, now.

 

[Lampo]

I quit taking him seriously a long time ago. I guess we both need to go to Confession, now.

I guess it’s a natural progression the longer you read what he writes, huh?

 

[sodak]

You certainly don’t need to go to confession when you realize who is behind what he writes. He’s not after answers, he’s simply trying to sow discord and calumny. All of his objections have been answered in exact detail, and he’ll never admit that, he just keeps trying new objections. Whatever. He’s the one who’ll have to answer for it.

 

[guanophore]

If its not written down this would explain how catholics would then be forced to believe things that there leaders tell them to believe even when there is no evidence for it. This sheds some light on the pope in 1950 who proclaimed Mary was assumed into heaven without any evidence for this. Your authority is enough to make you believe. Correct?

Such statements seem to reflect the thinking of a person who has been abused by authority figures. Catholics are not “forced” to believe anything! We recognize that Jesus told the Apostles “he who hears you, hears me” and we accept the loving Christ through the Church. Jesus does not “force” anyone to believe! On the contrary, He says “today I set before you life, and death. Choose life!”. Catholics have much evidence of these beliefs, ja4. You cannot know these things, because you have made up your mind they do not exist. It is hard to understand something when you can’t study it because you have made up your mind it is not there! No, authority does not “make” anyone believe anything. It is the light of Christ shining through the Truth that He brought to the Church that enlightens us, and makes us believe. I am sorry for whoever was in authority over you that hurt you. It is clear that you have been deeply wounded by this. It clearly impedes your ability to apprehend the Apostolic Teaching. I will keep you in my prayers.

One thing i notice with catholics that i have encountered here and elsewhere is that they don’t like to look too deeply at the foundation of their church’ claims. I don’t blame them in light of what you say here. I wouldn’t want to either with this kind of reasoning…

I believe you think this because you are a “bible christian”. In fact, for many of us, it was “looking deeply at the claims” that brought us home. We began to study history, and the Traditions, and realized that we were missing out on a lot with our private interpretations.

You have no evidence at all for this assertion. You can claim Holy Tradition but you have no evidence that they knew anything about these doctrines.

These things are not relics. Here is what relic means:something from dead holy person: something that is kept and venerated because it once belonged to a saint, martyr, or religious leader, especially a part of his or her body. In the case of Peter and Paul you don’t have something from a dead person.

Does it not phase you at all that God used these inanimate objects to heal? Sacred objects don’t become less sacred because someone departs the veil of flesh. Actually, we do have the remains of the Apostles, in many cases. That is part of sacred Tradition too!

Does this mean this is true because some people pray to the dead?

I have to disagree with jmcrae in characterizing the saints as “dead”. Those who are absent from the body here are at home with the Lord. Jesus taught us that those who believe in Him will NEVER DIE.

 Its my understanding that the apochyra work of  the Protoevangelium of James  was condemned by a pope and catholics are not even to read such literature.   I don't see how it can get much stronger against Protoevangelium of James which is considered heretical.

I am surprised that you would accept a papal ruling at all! Yes, there are elements of most of the condemned writings that contain some truth, but primarily error. That is why they were not included in the canon. It does not mean they have no historical value, though.

I am still shocked— that anyone who claims to believe in Christ would say such a thing like this. Thanks for the clarification since i now have a clearer picture where roman catholics are coming from.

Why does this “shock” you? Jesus did not come to write books, or even command that any be written. He founded a Church. I am glad that you are finally understanding the Catholic position better.

If what you say here is true, then there are far more serious problems in the catholic church than i suspected. For one the OT preceded Jesus and the church. Secondly, if i understand you correctly it was Holy Tradition (whatever that is--- i was not able to find the term in the catechism) is the source of the NT and not God. I must be wrong on this.... :eek:

It is not a problem if you can trust that God is able to watch over His word to perform it, ja4. Yes, the OT did precede Jesus, but in His day, there were several different groups that all accepted diffferent parts of the writings, and rejected others. The Catholic Church identified which ones were used by Jesus and the Apostles, and put them in the canon. Then the Reformers took some out! That is what is scary!

What is your defintion of a sacrament?

This is a biggie, and probably should go in a new thread. It is an action that embodies what it signifies, and conveys God’s grace.

 

[guanophore]

I’m still confused. Where does it say in these passages anything about Sacred Tradiition?
Secondly, am i to assume “the Way” was really roman catholicism with all its doctrines and practices is what is meant by the term?

You asked me where the Church taught officially that Sacred Tradition is a lifestyle, and I have shown you that it has been considered a Way of life since the early days. A Way for which the adherants were killed, and all before a word of the NT was written.

I have told you before, and I will tell you as many times as you need that your “Roman” characterization is coming from some anti-Catholic bigotry that was fed to you. There was no separate “Roman” Rite until about the year 600. This belief is shared by all the 23 Rites of the Catholic Church, the Coptic, Assyrian, and all the Eastern Communions. there are many doctrines that were not developed for hundreds of years, such as the Trinity. Doctrine is developed usually in response to heresy. The doctrine of the hypostatic union and the Trinity developed because of gnosticism, and the denial of the Person of Christ.

Forgive me i don't have a very large vocabulary like you and others have. My memory is not all that good. :bowdown:

We bear with one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

They were sacred Scritpure before the 2 testaments were combined. The church had nothing to do in making them inspired-inerrant.

Well, of course the Church did! Holy men, inspired by God, wrote them. These men were in the Church! But, you are right, they are inspired and inerrant because they come from the HS. That is why the Sacred Tradition is the same way. Because it comes from the same source. The HS led the Church to understand which books belonged in the canon.

Is this Holy Tradition the same as oral tradition?

There is One Divine Deposit of Faith. We find this in the Holy Traditions, and in Holy Writings.

 

[Jimmy_B]

There is One Divine Deposit of Faith.

 

[jmcrae]

I have to disagree with jmcrae in characterizing the saints as “dead”. Those who are absent from the body here are at home with the Lord. Jesus taught us that those who believe in Him will NEVER DIE.

I accept the correction. Thanks!!

 

[submittedjoy]

I quit taking him seriously a long time ago. I guess we both need to go to Confession, now.

Great! We could all use some time on our knees “confessing” our sins to Jesus!

 

[sodak]

Great! We could all use some time on our knees “confessing” our sins to Jesus!

In the sacrament of Confession.

 

[jmcrae]

Great! We could all use some time on our knees “confessing” our sins to Jesus!

And with a good Catholic priest there to help us, and to pray with us, it is so much the better.

 

[Lampo]

And with a good Catholic priest there to help us, and to pray with us, it is so much the better.

The ol’ binding and loosing in action!

 

[submittedjoy]

And with a good Catholic priest there to help us, and to pray with us, it is so much the better.

Maybe… but unnecessary…
Jesus isn’t hard of hearing!
He can hear our prayers of contrition and repentence
(which is what confession is) and relay the message to the Father just as well as any priest can… After all…

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, **Jesus Christ **the righteous:

Jesus is our Advocate. Our “lawyer” if you will… It doesn’t get any better than that! :clapping:

In the past… before the 2nd covenant… an ordinary man or woman could not go directly to the throne of God for forgiveness. :tsktsk: They had to go to an earthly priest. It was ordained.

Exodus 29:36a “And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement…”

Now, praise the Lord, the veil to the Holy of Holies has been torn.

Mark 15:38 “And the veil of the temple **was rent **in twain from the top to the bottom.”

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,:knight2: piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hebrews 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. :bigyikes:

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come **boldly **unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

We can now go directly to the “High Priest” (Jesus)
Glory be to Jesus! :bowdown2: Praise his name!