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

[jmcrae]

What makes you think “breaking of bread” means the Mass?

Because that’s what the people who were there thought it meant, when they were writing about it later on, in the writings of the Early Fathers.

Secondly, where does it say in Acts 2 that Peter is the one “breaking bread”?

He was their leader. He did the preaching, that day.

 

[Swan]

I will take that under advisement. We do believe that the Church that Jesus founded (the Catholic Church) does have the *fullness *truth. When you boil down all of the disagreements with the Church, the issue is authority. That authority is the hierarchy of the Church; the Pope and Magisterium. Since the Pope is part of the authority, him being infallible in matters of faith and morals is at the heart of most issues. To me, it’s always a matter of “could you be wrong in your interpretation?” For Protestants, the answer must be yes because they don’t believe in infallibility. Therefore, they must admit that they might be wrong.

I’m just going by the way Jesus set up His Church. This might sound arrogant to some, but thems are the just the facts as I see em. If it’s arrogant to claim that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, is the pillar and bullwark of truth and can never be wrong in areas of faith and morals, then so be it. Jesus promised he would guide his Church into all truth and I believe Him.

I want to tell you how much I appreciate the tone of respect in your response. You’ve stated your position nicely without making harsh judgments or attacks. To those of you out there who don’t do this - Look - it can be done! Today I have realized just how much damage we can do to another’s faith and how many obstacles we can put on their path to God by being self-righteous and judgmental, even it that result is totally unintended. On this Palm Sunday I am asking all Christians to join me in respecting the fact that we are not all in the same place on the path God, and that that we show all the same compassion and mercy that we would hope to receive, lest we damage another’s spirit (which will damage our own as well). Wishing all a blessed holy week.

Peace.

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying then that the “teachings of the apostles” is the Tradition?
Can you give me an example of a teaching of the apostle not found in the NT that is either a story-telling, customs, and ritual actions?

The NT is an example of the teachings of the Apostles. We received both the written and the oral Word. Your distinction is artificial, and is an attempt to drive a wedge where one does not exist. There is no separation of the Teaching from what is written, and what is oral.

Who was the first apostle to say Mass?

This is a good question. I think it was Peter, though He was very discouraged after He denied Christ, and may have required much support from the others. He did not seem to come into his own in terms of ministry until after Pentcost. He even seemed to go back to fishing for a while.

Where in Pauls writings do it show him ordaining or appointing priests?

Paul appointed Timothy and Titus (and probably others) as bishops and charge them to appoint presbyters.

Titus 1:5

5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,

Where is the reference to Paul laying his hands on Timothy?

2 Tim 1:5-7
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; 7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.

1 Tim 4:14-16
14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. 15 Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. 16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

What makes you think “breaking of bread” means the Mass?

I marvel at this. What do you think it means? When Jesus was at the last supper:

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Luke 22:19-20.

On the road to Emmaus, the disciples recognized Jesus when He took bread, and He broke it. St. Paul gives us the actual language that was used, and which is still used today:

" For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." 1 Cor 11:23-26

This apparently was revealed to Paul directly by Jesus, since he was not present in the upper room when the Last Supper occurred.

What do you think the Mass is?

Secondly, where does it say in Acts 2 that Peter is the one “breaking bread”?

I don’t see a Mass there. I can’t agree with jmcrae that this is what occurred. I think Peter preached a sermon, and people were converted and baptized. I think, after that, they went to Mass.

 

[submittedjoy]

Where it says that he is to be the husband of one wife. This means that he is only allowed to get married once in his whole life. This is how the first generation of Christians understood it, and not only that, but almost right from the very beginning, Bishops had to be celibate men - priests could be married men in those days (just as Deacons can, today), but they could not become Bishops until after their wives died. The Desert Fathers were celibate right from the start, and gradually, the priesthood moved to the model of the Desert Fathers, because it was easier.

Oh… it does not! It means that he is to have only one (1) living wife… Just my 2 cents… nevermind… just go on with your conversation.

 

[guanophore]

Perhaps you can give me some examples that will help me see.

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church’s practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

 

[guanophore]

Oh… it does not! It means that he is to have only one (1) living wife… Just my 2 cents… nevermind… just go on with your conversation.

Had you considered that those who wrote the passage understood what they wanted to say,and this was passed on to those who kept the Scripture? The Scripture did not drop out of the sky, as you seem to think. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. The NT is an entirely Catholic book!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3436695]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Perhaps you can give me some examples that will help me see.

guanophore
Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Does context matter to you? Do you think context helps us to understand what the scriptures or any other writings for that matter?
With this in mind, what is the context for this passage?

1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.

1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.

1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.

1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”

Where does Paul address church leadership in this passage?

1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry.

Help me see Where is there any mention in this verse about these men being widowers?

The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married.

True.

They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

Your ability to misinterpret scripture is truly amazing. If you read on to verses 4-5 you will find that indeed it is a requirement when it says: He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?
The only way to know if he can manage well is to have his own family.

1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church’s practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament.

In the context of church leadership is this would apply to this particular area.

In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).

In some cases this might be true but in the case of church leadership it does not. It is married men that Paul teaches that are to be leaders.

1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.

2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.

This passage doesn’t even hint at some kind of celibacy here. Here is what the New American Bible says in its footnotes from verses 1-7:
[1-7] This passage manifests a characteristic deep concern for safeguarding the faith and faithfully transmitting it through trustworthy people (2 Tim 2:1-2; cf 2 Tim 1:14; 1 Tim 6:20; Titus 1:9). Comparisons to the soldier’s detachment, the athlete’s sportsmanship, and the farmer’s arduous work as the price of recompense (2 Tim 2:4-6) emphasize the need of singleness of purpose in preaching the word, even at the cost of hardship, for the sake of Christ (2 Tim 2:3).

Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.

You could also make the same case for the umarried who also should be celibate in their lives until married.

 

[guanophore]

Does context matter to you? Do you think context helps us to understand what the scriptures or any other writings for that matter? With this in mind, what is the context for this passage?

Absolutely! The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It came from Catholic Teaching, and completely represents the Catholic doctrine. If you are speaking about the passage where Jesus commands those who are called to eunuchs for the Kingdom to accept their gift, I think the context is whether or not it is expedient to marry, since the vow is considered permanent. Jesus is saying that Moses allowed divorce because of people’s hardened heart.

Where does Paul address church leadership in this passage?

It is only in your mind where leadership is somehow synonomous with priesthood. Some priests are not good leaders, and are assigned other duties besides pastors of parishes.

Help me see Where is there any mention in this verse about these men being widowers?

Paul’s teaching on the service of celibate life is also found elsewhere. We take all the passages together as a whole to understand what is meant. We also receive from Sacred Tradition that a married man who has accepted Holy Orders cannot remarry. This is a commitment made at the beginning. Careful, though, becuase if you do decide to pursue becoming a Deacon, this same expectation will apply to you.

"Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband; 10 and she must be well attested for her good deeds, as one who has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, relieved the afflicted, and devoted herself to doing good in every way."1 Tim 5:9-11

These “widows” were the precursers to our modern nuns. However, these instructions were also disciplines imposed by Paul that have since been changed. Young women are also now allowed to be enrolled.

Your ability to misinterpret scripture is truly amazing. If you read on to verses 4-5 you will find that indeed it is a requirement when it says: He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?
The only way to know if he can manage well is to have his own family.

If he has a family, he is to manage it, yes. It is not “my” interpretation of scripture, it is the Church’s. I agree that the Catholic Church is amazing.

This is a discipline, not a doctrine. It is like wearing veils in church. Or do all of your women still wear veils because it is a “requirement” of scripture?

In the context of church leadership is this would apply to this particular area.

I can see your point. But it is not forbidden for one to marry. If one aspires to become a priest, then one will also have the gift of celibacy. This needs to be discerned by the individual. If one believes one is called to marriage, then there is another leadership position to which they are more suited.

In some cases this might be true but in the case of church leadership it does not. It is married men that Paul teaches that are to be leaders.

He teaches that it is permissible to become a presbyter or a bishop if one is married, under certain conditions. Paul would not lay out conditions that could not be applied to Jesus or himself, or to the person he is addressing. There is no scriptural evidence that Timothy or Titus were married and had children.

This passage doesn’t even hint at some kind of celibacy here. Here is what the New American Bible says in its footnotes from verses 1-7:
[1-7] This passage manifests a characteristic deep concern for safeguarding the faith and faithfully transmitting it through trustworthy people (2 Tim 2:1-2; cf 2 Tim 1:14; 1 Tim 6:20; Titus 1:9). Comparisons to the soldier’s detachment, the athlete’s sportsmanship, and the farmer’s arduous work as the price of recompense (2 Tim 2:4-6) emphasize the need of singleness of purpose in preaching the word, even at the cost of hardship, for the sake of Christ (2 Tim 2:3).

Would you not agree that a person whose interests are not divided could be more focused on this work?

You could also make the same case for the umarried who also should be celibate in their lives until married.

I would not, because for Catholics, celibacy is a vowed lifestyle consecrated to God. What we call the faithful unmarried is “chaste”. They abstain from sexual relations until the proper state in life (marriage). After marriage, they still remain “chaste” by remaining faithful to their vows.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3440042]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does context matter to you? Do you think context helps us to understand what the scriptures or any other writings for that matter? With this in mind, what is the context for this passage?

guanophore
Absolutely! The context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It came from Catholic Teaching, and completely represents the Catholic doctrine.

This is why your understanding of scripture is so skewed. You are reading the Scriptures from your Roman Catholic perspective and reading roman catholic thinking into the scriptures. The context of the NT is not the catholic church. When a person studies the gospels for example he is to take the context i.e. the background of the time, the audience and various other factors that will help to determine what is happening, why its happening and the meaning. All of this has nothing to do with the catholic church or any church for that matter. If we are to understand what the Scriptures mean we must always allow them to speak in their own contexts and not in some preconcieved theological system that is foreign to the texts. This is one of the fundamental problems with roman catholic theology that uses the scriptures as a basis.

guanophore
If you are speaking about the passage where Jesus commands those who are called to eunuchs for the Kingdom to accept their gift, I think the context is whether or not it is expedient to marry, since the vow is considered permanent. Jesus is saying that Moses allowed divorce because of people’s hardened heart.

Now we are getting close to what the scriptures mean when they speak of being a eunuch.

 

[Lampo]

All of this has nothing to do with the catholic church or any church for that matter.

Not even the one Scripture says is the pillar and bullwark of truth?

 

[Lampo]

Now we are getting close to what the scriptures mean when they speak of being a eunuch.

Based on who’s interpretation?

 

[peary]

This is why your understanding of scripture is so skewed. You are reading the Scriptures from your Roman Catholic perspective and reading roman catholic thinking into the scriptures. The context of the NT is not the catholic church. When a person studies the gospels for example he is to take the context i.e. the background of the time, the audience and various other factors that will help to determine what is happening, why its happening and the meaning. All of this has nothing to do with the catholic church or any church for that matter. If we are to understand what the Scriptures mean we must always allow them to speak in their own contexts and not in some preconcieved theological system that is foreign to the texts. This is one of the fundamental problems with roman catholic theology that uses the scriptures as a basis.

Scripture is the Catholic Church’s early writings. Once you ‘divorce’ Scriptures from the Church and vice versa, the interpretation becomes skewed. The context of the NT IS the Catholic Church - the same Church borne on Pentecost in the Book of Acts.

 

[sodak]

This is why your understanding of scripture is so skewed. You are reading the Scriptures from your Roman Catholic perspective and reading roman catholic thinking into the scriptures. The context of the NT is not the catholic church.

This is why you fail. Nothing could be further from the Truth.

 

[guanophore]

This is why your understanding of scripture is so skewed. You are reading the Scriptures from your Roman Catholic perspective and reading roman catholic thinking into the scriptures.

That would be kinda hard for me, not being “Roman”. But I do know that the Scriptures reflect the beliefs of the early Church, which are Catholic. The Roman Rite did not develop separately for about 600 years.

The context of the NT is not the catholic church. When a person studies the gospels for example he is to take the context i.e. the background of the time, the audience and various other factors that will help to determine what is happening, why its happening and the meaning.

Yes! And all of these were Catholic!

All of this has nothing to do with the catholic church or any church for that matter. If we are to understand what the Scriptures mean we must always allow them to speak in their own contexts and not in some preconcieved theological system that is foreign to the texts.

I agree. These new theological systems that have developed in the last 500 years are separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the Scriptures.

This is one of the fundamental problems with roman catholic theology that uses the scriptures as a basis.

None of the Catholic Rites, or the Orthodox, use the scriptures for a basis. That is why I say that these Apostolic Churches are not “bible religions”. They all received the teaching from Jesus. They all realize the bible is a reflection of the Doctrines, not the base of them. The base is the Teaching of Jesus.

Now we are getting close to what the scriptures mean when they speak of being a eunuch.

We are? Does that mean you will concede that celibacy is a gift from God?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3440757]
Originally Posted by justasking4
All of this has nothing to do with the catholic church or any church for that matter. If we are to understand what the Scriptures mean we must always allow them to speak in their own contexts and not in some preconcieved theological system that is foreign to the texts.

guanophore;
I agree. These new theological systems that have developed in the last 500 years are separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the Scriptures.

What Sacred Tradition? As far as i can tell from your responses about this you don’t what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is one of the fundamental problems with roman catholic theology that uses the scriptures as a basis.

guanophore;
None of the Catholic Rites, or the Orthodox, use the scriptures for a basis. That is why I say that these Apostolic Churches are not “bible religions”. They all received the teaching from Jesus. They all realize the bible is a reflection of the Doctrines, not the base of them. The base is the Teaching of Jesus.

This explains why there is so much divation from what the Scriptures in the Roman Catholic church. The only teachings of Jesus that we have is found only in the Scriptures. To claim that the teachings of men is the teachings of Jesus is to be seriously misguided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Now we are getting close to what the scriptures mean when they speak of being a eunuch.

guanophore;
We are? Does that mean you will concede that celibacy is a gift from God?

Its not in any gift “list” in the scriptures that i’m aware of nor is it ever used as a requirement for church leadership either.

 

[manualman]

I confess I skipped all the responses because the OP question made me remember a fun joke!

An anticatholic fundamentalist preacher dies and stands before God in judgement. God tells him “I have some good news for you and some bad news, which do you want first?” Preacher says “Good news!” God gives him a vision of all the people in hell suffering eternal torment and says “Look closely at these lost souls whom I loved. Every single one of them is Catholic.” Preacher gets excited and thinks “I KNEW it!” Then he remembers and asks “If that’s the good news, what’s the BAD news?” God opens a vision of heaven and all the saints could be seen enjoying perfection. God says “They’re all Catholic too.”

That’s the thing about Judgement Day: no misunderstanding, deception or denial will survive it. Some folks will realize that they had accepted Catholicism as GOD defines it without that fact making it all the way up to their conscious understanding and behavior (Baptism of Desire). Some folks will also realize that they gave lip service to Jesus and His Church, but never knew him (Yikes). Some will have both loved Him AND enjoyed the Graces He left in the Church to help us grow in holiness. (And of course, there will be some that were outwardly AND inwardly non-catholic).

 

[guanophore]

What Sacred Tradition? As far as i can tell from your responses about this you don’t what it is.

Sacred Tradition is the Christian lifestyle taugtht by the apostles. In the NT, it is called “the Way”. It is a way of being in the world, a world view, and a lifestyle. I admit that I learn more every day, but I am much closer to The Way now than I was ten years ago!

This explains why there is so much divation from what the Scriptures in the Roman Catholic church.

Actually, this is not “Roman” phenomenon, as your anti-Catholic bigoted sources suggest. this is an Apostolic phenomenon. You will find that none of the Apostolic communions are “bible based”. This is a modern innovation that has only occurred in the last 150 years. On the contrary, our Teachings come from Jesus HImself, and precede the Bible.

The only teachings of Jesus that we have is found only in the Scriptures.

These are all YOU have, becuase you have separated yourself from the Sacred and Apostolic Tradition that produced the scriptures.

To claim that the teachings of men is the teachings of Jesus is to be seriously misguided.

I agree. The Apostles taught what Jesus commanded, no more, and no less.

Its not in any gift “list” in the scriptures that i’m aware of nor is it ever used as a requirement for church leadership either.

Matt 19:12
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

What is Jesus commanding the disciples to receive, if it is not a gift?

7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But** each has his own special gift from God**, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Cor 7:6-9

Do you not understand this to say that both celibacy and married life are gifts from God (different kinds) and that Paul thinks it is better to remain unmarried?

I am not aware of anywhere that celibacy is required for church leadership either.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3442405]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What Sacred Tradition? As far as i can tell from your responses about this you don’t what it is.

guanophore
Sacred Tradition is the Christian lifestyle taugtht by the apostles. In the NT, it is called “the Way”. It is a way of being in the world, a world view, and a lifestyle. I admit that I learn more every day, but I am much closer to The Way now than I was ten years ago!

Where does your church define Sacred Tradition like this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This explains why there is so much divation from what the Scriptures in the Roman Catholic church.

guanophore
Actually, this is not “Roman” phenomenon, as your anti-Catholic bigoted sources suggest. this is an Apostolic phenomenon. You will find that none of the Apostolic communions are “bible based”.

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”.

This is a modern innovation that has only occurred in the last 150 years. On the contrary, our Teachings come from Jesus HImself, and precede the Bible.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The only teachings of Jesus that we have is found only in the Scriptures.

guanophore
These are all YOU have, becuase you have separated yourself from the Sacred and Apostolic Tradition that produced the scriptures.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
To claim that the teachings of men is the teachings of Jesus is to be seriously misguided.

guanophore
I agree. The Apostles taught what Jesus commanded, no more, and no less.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

Its not in any gift “list” in the scriptures that i’m aware of nor is it ever used as a requirement for church leadership either.

guanophore
Matt 19:12
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

What is Jesus commanding the disciples to receive, if it is not a gift?

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

guanophore
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Cor 7:6-9

Do you not understand this to say that both celibacy and married life are gifts from God (different kinds) and that Paul thinks it is better to remain unmarried?

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.

---

 

[sodak]

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?

No! A thousand times NO!

Our doctrines and practices are based upon Jesus Christ and his teachings! One of the fruits of our Church is the Bible! Other fruits are Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Magesterium. They…all…work…together.

The Scripture came from the Church, inspired by God. As did Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium. You’ve chosen one of these 3 to base all of your beliefs upon.

You are incomplete.

 

[jmcrae]

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”.

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 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

They were very well known to the Apostles; 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, and the history of that time shows us people praying to the dead martyrs in Heaven asking for their prayers, 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!