Again, you can’t know that for sure. Many non-Catholic Christians and their Church’s claim inspiration from the Holy Spirit, and yes, we know some of their theology differs to some degree from ours. Yet, who are you or anybody else to say that their inspiration is not from the Holy Spirit? Short answer: You don’t.
What about teachings in the catholic church that are not revealed in Scripture? Take Mary’s assumption as an example.
Actually, I do. Christ, who cannot lie, promised it to the Catholic Church; therefore, anything that outright contradicts what the Catholic Church has been given is not getting it from the Holy Spirit, since we know for certain (because we trust in Christ’s promises) that what the Church has received is from the Holy Spirit, and we know that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, nor lie, either, since He also is God, just like Jesus.
Mary’s Assumption was witnessed by St. Thomas - his account was passed on to all of the Apostles, first of all, and through them to the Church. St. John even alludes to it in Revelation 12:1. There are also references to it in a variety of first century Church documents, but I don’t have the references at hand just at the moment - these would be indexed in Jurgens’ Faith of the Early Fathers under “Doctrine.”
For this to be true, the Holy Spirit must be on vacation or something. When Jesus ascended into Heaven the Holy Spirit was a gift to all believers. How else are we to discern what is right or wrong? We cannot do that on our own. Not even the Pope can do that without the Holy Spirit! No doctrine can take the place of the Holy Spirit. If you think the new revelations ended in 95 AD, I’m sure the Catholic doctrine has changed since then.
You get an “A” for devoutness, but a “C-” for being a little narrow minded. Unless, I’m understanding you wrong, you are insinuating that the Catholic Church seems to have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit’s activities. The Holy Spirit can offer guidance to anybody, Catholic or not, and I don’t think Jesus made any stipulations. Remember there was no Catholic Church when Christ was alive; he was making his promises to the world with no time stipulation. He was talking to everybody for all time, not just to the Catholic Church.
Actually we are talking about Authority here, and Jesus left that authority, and The CC to Peter. And Yes he did tell Peter and the Disciples he would give them the words. I do believe Jesus started the CC and said that it would prevail. So I guess if Jesus leaving the Catholic Church and saying what he did, yes i guess you could see it as a monopoly if you would like. But myself I saw Jesus to leave the CC to everyone. But I do recall in the Apostles Creed to say One Holy Catholic Church. Again as i have said many of times how can you go by the Apostles teachings and not by their Creed. And myself I do believe he made stipulations, on who and how the Church should be run. Again he put Peter in charge. And what Church did Peter start? It wasnt many Churchs, It was One.
Very true. However, the Holy Spirit promised to guide the Church into all truth.
JMCRAE by this statement then I would have to dismiss anything after John including what the ECFs had to say. This would include Transubstantiation, Doctrine’s of Mary etc. as they were not teachings of any of the Apostles. So then any documents that the Popes declared infallible have to be dismissed.
One Holy Catholic(universal), not one Holy Roman Catholic. The church is the body of Christ. The body of Christ is all believers in Christ plain and simple.
So now getting to Heaven is like a Chili recipe
And all we have to do is eat the Eucharist? So by your recipe idea that means atheists, muslims or anyone who walks into a RCC and eats the Eucharist goes to Heaven.
I believe thats what i said. The four marks or signs by which we can recognize the church founded by Christ appear first in the creed wich came out of the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople in years 325 and 381. we express our belief in One, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church. It is paragraphs 818-870 in CCC.
Interesting. I’ve read the Old Testament, and NEVER heard any of the prophets claim that they were the only way to salvation. Many if not all told the people what God expected of them in order to attain salvation, but they never themselves claimed to be the way.
Rinnie glad you agree that it’s not the Roman Catholic Church but the Catholic Church
well lets hold on i didnt say that. ccc 883 quote The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peters successor, as its head As such this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church, but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of Roman pontiff.Unquote. So Do i believe in the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church. Sorry its the Roman Catholic Church. and above is why. Roman Catholic all the way for this girl. And simply because i believe the Church was left to Peter so its left to the Pope. I have to believe in that. I cant just believe in half of it. So sorry if i didnt make myself clearer. God BlessRinnie glad you agree that it’s not the Roman Catholic Church but the Catholic Church
PEACE
The unity with the Roman Pontiff is about unity in doctrine. It does not make the other Catholic Rites “Roman”. This tendency to disregard Catholics from other rites by Latins is part of what keeps the church divided.
This is true, more or less… but there is no guarantee a person will interpret things CORRECTLY… which is why we need a Church… When there are conflicts of opinion as 2 what a Scripture means, we have the Church to tell us who is right… (if anyone.?)…
There are some Sciptures that are easy to understand, some that are not… The difficult ones should be left to the scholars who have been ordained by Christ (through the Church). Jesus knew we would need certainty… He knew better than anyone how weak our human minds can be… how we would rationalize our behavior… twist the truth, etc… So he established an infallible papacy… (however, that doesn’t mean the pope is infallible in every situation… just when he is teaching what is to be believed by the entire Church…)…
We should probably start another thread on this, since this one is already over the post limit. However, I think that we most certainly CAN be sure that if a private revelation is not consistent with what the Church teaches then it is not from God. I agree that the HS can whisper to anybody, but God is One, and does not contradict Himself. There is one Divine Deposit of Faith, so everything must be consistent with that.
It would still have to flow from and be consistent with that which was delivered “once for all”. The immaculate conception is an example.
Certainly there are many who are inspired of God, non-Catholics included. However, we can recognize what is from God by holding it up to what we have already received from God.
This is not a problem for Catholics, since we know that the NT was never intended to be a complete record of all that was revealed by God. Jesus revealed everything to the Apostles.
No one is saying that the HS is “on vacation” for Christ’s sake! Of course the HS leads each of us to discern what is right an wrong. People are constantly in need of revelation. It is the deposit of faith that was delivered once for all to the saints, not their apprehension of it. Look how many centuries it took to come up with many of the doctrines like the Trinity, hypostatic union, observation of the Sabbath on Sunday, etc. People develop, and our understanding of doctrine develops, but not the doctrine itself. What the HS does is help us to understand and walk in what has been revealed.
You are right, the HS does work outside the visible Catholic Church. All we are saying is that the HS will not work antagonistically.
If this is really your position, then you have to throw out your NT, and most of your other Christian Doctrines that have been developed over the centuries, like the hypostatic union. It is the job of the Church to preserve, protect, and defend the one divine deposit of faith. That does not mean everyone understood everything at the death of the last Apostle. Of course, we can even see misunderstandings in the NT, like the Jews thinking that the Gentiles had to be circumcised and made to follow the Mosaic law. As various heresies cropped up, the Church found it necessary to explain and define doctrine more clearly. This is what you see in the ECF, especially Against Heresies. However, there are also writings in that period that are not consistent with the Apostolic Teachings, and should be rejected.JMCRAE by this statement then I would have to dismiss anything after John including what the ECFs had to say. This would include Transubstantiation, Doctrine’s of Mary etc. as they were not teachings of any of the Apostles. So then any documents that the Popes declared infallible have to be dismissed.
Thanks for confirming my position
I agree with you, but those who are not having a unity in doctrine with the Roman Pontiff are improperly joined to the Body, or may not actually be part of it at all.