"It's not biblical"

[twb1621]

A Christian is a Christ-follower … a Roman Catholic is a papist. I believe totally in the absoluteness of scripture … you believe in the “three legged stool” (scripture, tradition and the magisterium).

I’m in no way saying you are damned. You’re still breathing and there’s still time for you to yield to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

p.s. BTW, all the RC’s that I know (and this includes most of my family) when asked what religion they are will always say “Roman Catholic” … never RC Christian or Christian.

Throughout the world regardless of faith, Roman Catholic or Catholic is understood as synonymous with Christianity. Aside from that, based on your convictions, you are extremely limited and misguided in your interpretation of Christianity. You really should consider my questions from post #70.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Charlye
“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.”
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D…

Peace, onenow1

 

[e61iuser]

Hi, Charlye
“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.”
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D…

Peace, onenow1

Magnificent onenow1! Thanks for this. I’ll be putting this quote in my file from now on.

 

[Pwrlftr]

And if so, do you accept the teaching of the Gospel that it does not contain anywhere near a sufficient record of the teachings or activities of Jesus and that Sacred Tradition MUST be continued through succession in addition to the Gospel? (The Gospel declares this)

What exactly did Jesus do or teach that isn’t taught in scripture but found exclusively in your church’s tradition?

Sacred Tradition backed by the OT and NT teach us of the Assumption of Mary, but you haven’t learned of that yet.

Tradition may teach this but as far as I know scripture is completely silent.

 

[twb1621]

What exactly did Jesus do or teach that isn’t taught in scripture but found exclusively in your church’s tradition?

Tradition may teach this but as far as I know scripture is completely silent.

if you are willing to answer the questions in post #70 which you obviously read from the quotation, I will respond to that.

 

[Pwrlftr]

if you are willing to answer the questions in #70, I will respond to that.

What exactly is your question?

 

[charlye]

(Answer these questions thoughtfully.)
If so, (and I believe you do believe) do you realize the writings of the Gospel were excerpts from the sacred tradition and teachings taught by the apostles as they in turn were taught by Jesus? I would hope Common sense dictates this understanding considering many many years passed before the words of the Gospel were written.

The oral teachings of those holy men and what they penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit** are identical**. One did not, and could not, contradict the other. But when you insert the unwritten, fallible teachings of the RCC, under the guise of “sacred tradition”, what you come up with is a completely different gospel than was preached by Jesus.

Exactly what do you think the bible is comprised of … it’s the letters written to the different churches, that followed **exactly **the oral teachings of the apostles. Or are you saying, for example, that these great men preached further cleansing after death but somehow this wasn’t included in scripture?

 

[twb1621]

The oral teachings of those holy men and what they penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit** are identical**. One did not, and could not, contradict the other. But when you insert the unwritten, fallible teachings of the RCC, under the guise of “sacred tradition”, what you come up with is a completely different gospel than was preached by Jesus.

Exactly what do you think the bible is comprised of … it’s the letters written to the different churches, that followed **exactly **the oral teachings of the apostles. Or are you saying, for example, that these great men preached further cleansing after death but somehow this wasn’t included in scripture?

So you are saying there is no other teachings or points of Christianity to know other than what is in writing and ALL of the teachings are in writing?

Breaking it down, a basic question, do you realize the writings of the Gospel were excerpts from the sacred tradition and teachings taught by the apostles as they in turn were taught by Jesus? I would hope Common sense dictates this understanding considering many many years passed before the words of the Gospel were written.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Breaking it down, a basic question, do you realize the writings of the Gospel were excerpts from the sacred tradition and teachings taught by the apostles as they in turn were taught by Jesus? I would hope Common sense dictates this understanding considering many many years passed before the words of the Gospel were written.

I know you didn’t address this to me but I would like to respond.

I don’t know of anyone that denies that there was a period of time that elapsed between the gospel accounts and the time that they were penned. But it is a tremendous leap in logic to go from this to accepting a seperate body of revelation under the category of Tradition as your church defines it.

I am really interested in your answer(s) to my questions that I posted a few posts ago so if you have to have my answers to your questions before you respond please let me know clearly what you want answered.

 

[foundthelight]

The oral teachings of those holy men and what they penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit** are identical**. One did not, and could not, contradict the other. But when you insert the unwritten, fallible teachings of the RCC, under the guise of “sacred tradition”, what you come up with is a completely different gospel than was preached by Jesus.

Exactly what do you think the bible is comprised of … it’s the letters written to the different churches, that followed **exactly **the oral teachings of the apostles. Or are you saying, for example, that these great men preached further cleansing after death but somehow this wasn’t included in scripture?

I will focus on followed exactly. Do you hold that the communion you take in church is truly the Body and Blood of Christ? If not then you are not “following exactly”.

Why do you refuse to answer any of my questions? Are they too difficult for you?

 

[charlye]

And if so, do you accept the teaching of the Gospel that it does not contain anywhere near a sufficient record of the teachings or activities of Jesus and that Sacred Tradition MUST be continued through succession in addition to the Gospel? (The Gospel declares this)

First of all, the bible tells us that Jesus did many other things … not that He preached many other things … and, secondly, the things which **are recorded ** are written for our edification, so that by believing in His name we will have eternal life.

Sure, Jesus “did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples” but whatever they were, they are irrelevant as pertains to our salvation. All God wants us to know to attain eternal life is contained within the pages of the holy bible. All the suppositions, could be’s, should be’s and guess work as to what isn’t written is a complete waste of time.

 

[jb80]

I know you didn’t address this to me but I would like to respond.

I don’t know of anyone that denies that there was a period of time that elapsed between the gospel accounts and the time that they were penned. But it is a tremendous leap in logic to go from this to accepting a seperate body of revelation under the category of Tradition as your church defines it.

I am really interested in your answer(s) to my questions that I posted a few posts ago so if you have to have my answers to your questions before you respond please let me know clearly what you want answered.

It’s not a separate body of revelation, but they both come from the same source, Christ.

From the Catechism

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

And it’s definitely not a ‘leap of logic’ to think that there are things not included in writing since Scripture actually says this.

2 Thess 2:15

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The leap of faith would seem to come from thinking that everything that was taught by oral statement was written down, even though at the time of writing 2 Thess, this obviously wasn’t the case. And the Bible itself never makes that claim, but in fact, as seen above, claims the exact opposite.

 

[charlye]

Whether you accept it or not, whether you want to agree or not, you can not with good common sense justify accepting and believing in the Gospel but not the additional articles the Gospel itself tells us to follow.

Nonsense, twb. I’ve got good ole New England common sense (the best there is!) and I accept and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ as outlined only within the pages of God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired scripture!!

Your “additional articles” are not the infallible word of God or they would be contained in scripture. What is so difficult to understand about that? Scripture is the only vehicle we have that contains the testimony of our loving God. If it’s not contained therein it is of no relevance.

 

[charlye]

if you are willing to answer the questions in post #70 which you obviously read from the quotation, I will respond to that.

Questions are answered … ball’s in your court, twb.

 

[foundthelight]

Questions are answered … ball’s in your court, twb.

I feel so left out charlye.

Are you afraid to answer my questions?

 

[charlye]

Now, if you cannot defend Sola Scriptura, why do you ask us to defend the Assumption based on Sola Scriptura? A defense which, by the way, has been presented quite well. They are both Tradition. Sola Scriptura is a Tradition of the Reformation, the Assumption a Tradition of the Church. We have presented a defense of our position. Where is yours?

I asked for scriptural documentation for the assumption because … are you ready … it was previously stated that the RCC marian teachings were biblical!

Your “defense” of Rev 12 is astounding … especially when I asked several times for clarification as to verse 6 and verse 14. Got no takers but I’m not surprised. I mean, did Mary flee to the desert where she was taken care of for 1,260 days (vs. 6) … or was she given the two wings of a great eagle so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert (vs 14). If it’s Mary in verse 1, it’s Mary in the other two verses, isn’t it?

Come on now … I’ve answered all the questions I think I was asked. Time to step up to the plate.

 

[twb1621]

I know you didn’t address this to me but I would like to respond.

I don’t know of anyone that denies that there was a period of time that elapsed between the gospel accounts and the time that they were penned. But it is a tremendous leap in logic to go from this to accepting a seperate body of revelation under the category of Tradition as your church defines it.

I am really interested in your answer(s) to my questions that I posted a few posts ago so if you have to have my answers to your questions before you respond please let me know clearly what you want answered.

no, you didn’t answer each question. a yes or no is all it requires;

(Answer these questions thoughtfully.)
If so, (and I believe you do believe) do you realize the writings of the Gospel were excerpts from the sacred tradition and teachings taught by the apostles as they in turn were taught by Jesus? I would hope Common sense dictates this understanding considering many many years passed before the words of the Gospel were written.

And if so, do you accept the teaching of the Gospel that it does not contain anywhere near a sufficient record of the teachings or activities of Jesus and that Sacred Tradition MUST be continued through succession in addition to the Gospel? (The Gospel declares this)

Now claiming full belief in the Gospel as the Word of Jesus, you must accept this directive also but where would you be able to find the teaching of this sacred tradition and the apostolic succession to provide it? The Gospel says it must be done.
There is only one place that can possibly provide these three articles and without the three together, you are not getting the fullness of Christianity. Whether you accept it or not, whether you want to agree or not, you can not with good common sense justify accepting and believing in the Gospel but not the additional articles the Gospel itself tells us to follow.

Sacred Tradition backed by the OT and NT teach us of the Assumption of Mary, but you haven’t learned of that yet.

However…
You believe in the Gospel as the written Word, This is part of that word;
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John CH: 21, v 25)

 11 Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, 12 that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned. 13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word. (2 Thessalonians CH: 2, v11-17

now again, unless you totally disregard these authentic scripture verses, see if you can answer each of the questions honestly.

My answer to you is simple. If you believe the Gospel is all there is, and if this were true, we would have lost this tradition forever because what is referred to was not written it was passed on as is written.

This format only allows for 6000 charactors but if you really want an answer to your question, to learn what it is that is not in the written Gospel you can let me know and I will refer you to very Reliable RCIA courses.

 

[JRKH]

Nonsense, twb. I’ve got good ole New England common sense (the best there is!) and I accept and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ as outlined only within the pages of God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired scripture!!

Your “additional articles” are not the infallible word of God or they would be contained in scripture. What is so difficult to understand about that? Scripture is the only vehicle we have that contains the testimony of our loving God. If it’s not contained therein it is of no relevance.

I will ask you the same questions I would ask any “Bible believing” Protestant.
Please explain to me why I should believe that this book contains everything I need to know?
By what Authority do you claim that this volume ,and no other, is innerrant?
When and How was this volume assembled and why should I accept their work as correct and inerrant?
If the Holy Bible is perfect, complete and innerrant, why are their Holy Bibles with different Numbers of Books in them?

These are fully legitimate questions that any serious Christian should ask themselves. Why? Because, while we must accept much on faith, we must also test to be sure that someone isn’t feeding us a false or perverted Gospel.

I’m not a philosophy or logic guru, but It seems to me that you are using a circular argument in your post.
The fact is that the Holy Bible as we know it today, and in particular the NT, IS as part of Sacred Tradition. It is actually one of the “Articles” and not seperate from them.
Nothing within the pages of the Bible tells me which books should be contained therein - It is by the action of Christ’s Holy Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we know which books belong.
No text within the pages of tha Holy Bible tells me that these books and ONLY these books are to be considered inerrant. It is through the action of the Christ’s Holy Church, acting under His protection and guidance that we accept these books as inerrant.

These are also common sense “facts” that directly relate to the validity of Holy Scripture as contained in the Volume we call the Holy Bible.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I was in no way being uncharitable, tmac. I even put a smilie face on it!

But as far as being brothers in Christ, yes, I do have a problem with that. I consider myself to be a christian. He is a Roman Catholic.

I am a Catholic sir, of the Roman Rite, - Roman Catholic as you say here, and I can assure you that we are every bit as Christian as any other. In Fact I believe we are more so since we believe in and adhere to Christ’s One Holy and Apostolic Church.
We are members of Christ’s own Church founded upon Peter with Christ’s own words.
The Church that Paul calls the Pillar and foundation of Truth.
When we have disputes we “Tell it to the Church” to find the correct way as commanded by Christ Himself.
We accept the Church’s teaching for it is bound in heaven as it is bound on earth as commanded by Christ Himself.
We Believe in and participate in the Holy Eucharist, Eating the Bread of Life, Christ’s own Body, and Drinking His Blood, as commanded by Christ Himself.

We accept and follow these commands, given by Christ Himself and recorded in Sacred Scripture, while you reject them.
Who is Following Christ’s commands in Scripture more fully, Catholics or “Bible Believers”

I pray soon you will will remove this evil anti-catholic plank from your eye. Then perhaps Christ will be able to lead you to the fullness of faith in His Church.

Peace
James

 

[foundthelight]

Come on now … I’ve answered all the questions I think I was asked. Time to step up to the plate.

You have not. In fact, you have steadfastly refused to answer questions. It is time for you, sir, to step up to the plate.