Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[Breynolds12]

Here are just a few of the many writings by Early Church Fathers
in support of keeping the traditions. Show me similar writings which say,
‘Do not keep the traditions’. Show me a mention of the protestant false
doctrine of Sola Scriptura…

---

Keeping the Tradition…

Polycrates, Letter to Victor of Rome 5:24:1. J190a
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2, 2:9:1. J192,198,209
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2, J210-213,226,242,257
Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus 5:20:4. J264
Tertullian, Demurrer Against Heretics 19:3. J291-296,*298
Tertullian, The Veiling of Virgins 2:1. J328a,329
Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:5:1+. J341,371
Hippolytus, Against Heresy of Noetus 17. J394
Origen, Fundamental Doctrines 1reface:2,4. J443,445,785
Athanasius, Letters to Serapion 1:28. J782
Foebad of Agen, Against Arians 22. J898
Basil The Great, Transcript of Faith 125:3. J917
Basil The Great, The Holy Spirit 27:66. J954
Basil The Great, Faith 1. J972
Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius J1043
Epiphanius, Against All Heresies 61:6,73:34. J1098,1107
Chrysostom, On Romans 1:3. J1181
Chrysostom, On Second Thessalonians 4:2. J1213
Jerome, Dialogue between Luciferian & Christian 8. J1358
Augustine, Letter to Januarius 54:1:1,3. J1419,1419a
Augustine, Against Letter of Mani 5:6. J1581
Augustine, Baptism 2:7:12, 4:24:31. J1623,1631
Augustin, Literal Interpretation Genesis 10:23:39. J1705
Augustin, City of GOD 16:2:1. J1765
Augustin, Against Julian 1:7:30, 2:10:33. J1898-1900
Innocent I, Letter to Council of Carthage 29:1. J2015f
Theodoret of Cyr, Letter to Florentius 89. J2142
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 2:1, 9:14. J2168,2169,
Vincent of Lerins, The Notebooks 20:25, 22:27. J2172-2175
Gregory I, Homilies on Ezechiel 2:4:12. J2329
Damascene, Homilies 10:18. J2390

The Jxxxx references are paragraph numbers for
“The Faith of the Early Fathers”, by William A. Jurgens.

Thank you Bill God Bless all of you, yes this includes Tanner we all pray to the same Lord
Peace

 

[elvisman]

Hey, not so fast! I am not “anti-Catholic,” and I was not aiming to be hostile to the Catholic Church. I was merely making a direct, point by point response to guanophore. I do, however, disagree theologically with the Catholic practice of praying to Mary or the Saints.

**No - you’re playing games. **
You’re intimating that praying to the saints could be as sinful as conjuring up the dead.
You’re arguing against what you charge is the Catholic position - and yet don’t have a clue. That’s how anti-Catholics operate on this board.

We Catholics have explained over and oner again on this thread that we do NOT worhip the saints - we do NOT try to conjure them up and we do NOT
and it falls on deaf ears.
I think those ears are as prideful as thay are deaf - and THAT, my friend IS a sin…

 

[onenow1]

onenow1;5518257:

Tanner9188;5518239:

1) written by the Holy Spirit through men 2) Yes 3) Positive 100%

"I would’nt be so sure on # 3 that’s all folks’ QUOTE]

GK.Chesterton said it perfectly. “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.”

Peace,and God Bless onenow1

 

[Convert66]

Tanner,

What are those traditions Paul refers to and be very specific and provide proof of your answer and I encourage anyone to answer this question?

In II Thess: 2 , Paul is speaking about the false teaching that some were offering regarding the day of the Lord as that it had already come. Therefore he tells them to hold fast to the traditions they were taught whether by word or letter (as in the 1st letter to the Thessalonians or what he had taught them when he was with them before the writing of II Thessalonians).

What proof do you have that shows they already existed; since it is written in the past tense; they already were in effect.

You answered your own question. Since it is written in the past tense, they were already in effect (most likely what Paul had taught them by letter and, by oral teaching when he was among them prior to the writing of 2nd Thessalonians)

In the 3rd Chapter there is another reference where Paul is telling them how to behave and using his own example while he was among them and referring to it as an example and a tradition that they (Paul and his companions) delivered unto the Thessalonians.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
2Th 3:11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
2Th 3:12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

Now, if you can find the reference in the 1st letter to the Thessalonians where Paul tells them what is underlined above ( “if any would not work, neither should he eat”) then it may undercut his argument in the letter for tradition being on the level of the letters he wrote to them. If you can’t, it means he taught them things by word of mouth (i.e. oral tradition) which were to be considered on the level of his own letters or those of his fellows.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to the questions I posed to you earlier.

1. Which came first: The teachings and sayings of Jesus or the four Gospels?
2. What was your ‘religion’ before you assented to what ever faith you currently hold?

All my best . . .

 

[Ignatius]

Jesus Christ is our only ‘mediator’ as stated by St. Paul. Non-Catholics like to point out this verse to Catholics (out of context of course), as they mistakenly perceive that we ‘mediate’ through His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth.
.

Every Protestant denomination uses Intercessory prayer in their churches. We do to same thing but we include the whole church; Church Militant, Church Suffering and Church Triumphant!

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,

I’ll grant that this could be the case, but would you admit that your convictions came from the Holy Spirit based upon nothing but a “flash of revelation” or did you have any thoughts on the subject of your faith prior to the Holy Spirit’s confirmation of them? Grace builds upon nature, so tradition (like Moses’ awareness of ANE oral traditions) serves as an “outline” of givens that the Holy Spirit then confirms or rejects. I do not know your faith tradition, but I am willing to bet you did not invent your own faith and it was present before you were born. The Bible is a collection of previously existing oral traditions. This is a simple and irrefutable fact. The Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church (and no other . . this is also an irrefutable fact) to canonize the writings based upon previously existing oral traditions into a single volume we call the Bible. So which came first? Scripture or Tradition? In simpler form, which came first, Jesus’ teachings and sayings or the four Gospels?

Also, what was your “religion” prior to your assent to the faith you now hold?

All my best . . .

**Which post are you referring to? Nothing outside of general revelation (i.e creation-Romans 1 and begging of ch.2) or divine revelation (i.e Scripture) is necessary for salvation, Christian living, edification & equipping of the body and knowledge of God’s character and attributes to bring us into a closer love relationship with Him and Him with us.

Nothing is wrong with traditions; and are useful for bringing Christians into fellowship with each other and God.
However, traditions should always be measured against divine revelation to make sure they are in accord with divine authority.
The Catholic Church defines Scripture by its traditions; thus putting greater emphasis on tradition in light of Scripture IMO.
The reason is because Scripture is the inspired Word; whereas some/many traditions are in direct contradiction to Scripture and add and/or subtract from God’s word. By doing so; traditions of men are saying God did not add enough or God put too much in; either way one is saying God did not do it right.

As far as what came first; the gospels or tradition that depends on how you view things from man’s perspective or God’s; they are usually different. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”; so in the infinite mind of God; He had everything already determined according to His purpose including the gospel, oral traditions, written word, you, me etc.
From man’s perspective; I really don’t know. I doubt all the instruction, which God gave Moses concerning the Levitical priesthood and all that encompasses could be memorized unless they were given supernatural memories passed on from generation to generation; which I guess could be the case.
We do know that God wrote on tablets twice; the ten commandments.

I really don’t know the answer; to me it doesn’t make a difference for salvation if from the Lord and He has laid down the standard and told us the do’s and don’ts.

Prior to being called of God; I was self deceived into thinking that I believed in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that by being a “good” person I would be in heaven. I didn’t attend a church or anything. I do remember as child looking up at the sky’s and and the creation in general and thinking what a “neat” cool God. I also remember when we studied evolution; never buying into teaching that we came from monkeys. None of that stuff ever seemed like common sense to me. Like how a leaf became a fossil before it would actually dry up and completely decay before anything could fossilize; unless something catastrophic happened. Why people did not believe in a world wide flood when seashells embedded into rocks are everywhere I have ever been.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Every Protestant denomination uses Intercessory prayer in their churches. We do to same thing but we include the whole church; Church Militant, Church Suffering and Church Triumphant!

**Thence the Rosary takes us on to the Glorious Mysteries, wherein likewise is revealed the mediation of the great Virgin, still more abundant in fruitfulness. She rejoices in heart over the glory of her Son triumphant over death, and follows Him with a mother’s love in His Ascension to His eternal kingdom; but, though worthy of Heaven, she abides a while on earth, so that the infant Church may be directed and comforted by her “who penetrated, beyond all belief, into the deep secrets of Divine wisdom” (St. Bernard). … And behold, Mary is in the room, and there, praying with the Apostles and entreating for them with sobs and tears, she hastens for the Church the coming of the Spirit, the Comforter, the supreme gift of Christ, the treasure that will never fail. And later, without measure and without end will she be able to plead our cause, passing upon a day to the life immortal. Therefore we behold her taken up from this valley of tears into the heavenly Jerusalem, amid choirs of Angels. And we honor her, glorified above all the Saints, crowned with stars by her Divine Son and seated at His side the sovereign Queen of the universe.

If in all this series of Mysteries, Venerable Brethren, are developed the counsels of God in regard to us–“counsels of wisdom and of tenderness” (St. Bernard)–not less apparent is the greatness of the benefits for which we are debtors to the Virgin Mother. No man can meditate upon these without feeling a new awakening in his heart of confidence that he will certainly obtain through Mary the fullness of the mercies of God…we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”…For if thus we again and again greet Mary, it is precisely that our failing and defective prayers may be strengthened with the necessary confidence; as though we pledged her to pray for us, and as it were in our name, to God.

For this cause do we repeatedly celebrate those glorious titles of her ministry as Mediatrix. Her do we greet who found favor with God, and who was in a signal manner filled with grace by Him so that the superabundance thereof might overflow upon all men; her, united with the Lord by the most intimate of all conjunction; her who was blessed among women, and who “alone took away the curse and bore the blessing” (St. Thomas)

…the sweet feeling of St. Bernard: “Remember, O most pious Virgin Mary, that never was it heard that any who fled to thy protection, called upon thy help, and sought thy intercession, was left forsaken.” But the fruits of the Rosary appear likewise, and with equal greatness, in the turning with mercy of the heart of the Mother of God towards us

On the Rosary
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
September 8, 1894

To the Partiarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.​

I believe you stand corrected; unless the Pope was/is wrong. This was the tip of the iceberg. Some of the other things highlighted is enough to make me gag.**

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,

In II Thess: 2 , Paul is speaking about the false teaching that some were offering regarding the day of the Lord as that it had already come. Therefore he tells them to hold fast to the traditions they were taught whether by word or letter (as in the 1st letter to the Thessalonians or what he had taught them when he was with them before the writing of II Thessalonians).

You answered your own question. Since it is written in the past tense, they were already in effect (most likely what Paul had taught them by letter and, by oral teaching when he was among them prior to the writing of 2nd Thessalonians)

In the 3rd Chapter there is another reference where Paul is telling them how to behave and using his own example while he was among them and referring to it as an example and a tradition that they (Paul and his companions) delivered unto the Thessalonians.

Now, if you can find the reference in the 1st letter to the Thessalonians where Paul tells them what is underlined above ( “if any would not work, neither should he eat”) then it may undercut his argument in the letter for tradition being on the level of the letters he wrote to them. If you can’t, it means he taught them things by word of mouth (i.e. oral tradition) which were to be considered on the level of his own letters or those of his fellows.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to the questions I posed to you earlier.

1. Which came first: The teachings and sayings of Jesus or the four Gospels?
2. What was your ‘religion’ before you assented to what ever faith you currently hold?

All my best . . .

That was the best answer; most Catholics associate that passage with the apostolic succession and the traditions that have evolved over time within the Church.

 

[Convert66]

Tanner,

Which post are you referring to?

Your reply to my first post in this thread. You said, in response to my question about Moses’ knowledge of ANE traditions and geneaologies in the Torah, “The Holy Spirit, ya think?”

Nothing outside of general revelation (i.e creation-Romans 1 and begging of ch.2) or divine revelation (i.e Scripture) is necessary for salvation, Christian living, edification & equipping of the body and knowledge of God’s character and attributes to bring us into a closer love relationship with Him and Him with us.

Catholics woulfd agree with you here, I think. What we differ on is what the correct interpretation of that Revelation (i.e. Sacraments; Authority; Eschatology;, etc.).

The Catholic Church defines Scripture by its traditions

Of course. You seem to think the Holy Spirit capable of inspiring men in the past to write the Scriptures, and the Church capable of receiving the HS’s guidance to determine what was canonical and what wasn’t, but incapable of safe-guarding that tradition as Jesus Himself promised. You already believe that St. Peter was infallible at least three times (Acts Jerusalem council; and 1st and 2nd Peter) What practical means were used in making the determination of whether the doctrines contained within a given writing was in the Tradition of the Apostle’s teachings or not? That is the “rule” (which is what “canon” means) and that is how the Church codified the Bible.

thus putting greater emphasis on tradition in light of Scripture IMO.

Thus the need of a rule for distinguishing man’s opinions, from what is inspired by the HS.

The reason is because Scripture is the inspired Word; whereas some/many traditions are in direct contradiction to Scripture and add and/or subtract from God’s word. By doing so; traditions of men are saying God did not add enough or God put too much in; either way one is saying God did not do it right.

Let’s pick two “traditions” that are in opposition to the Scriptures and discuss those. I’m encouraged that you admit that Protestants have said God did not do it right by removing seven books from the canon accepted by the Apostles and the Authors of the NT (the LXX includes the Apocryphal, or deutero-canonical books).

As far as what came first; the gospels or tradition that depends on how you view things . . .From man’s perspective; I really don’t know.

You are being evasive.

I doubt all the instruction, which God gave Moses concerning the Levitical priesthood and all that encompasses could be memorized unless they were given supernatural memories passed on from generation to generation; which I guess could be the case.

That is what Catholics mean by the HS preserving Sacred Tradition, as opposed to little “t” traditions.

We do know that God wrote on tablets twice; the ten commandments.

And we are all grateful that Moses remembered what was written thereon once he had broken them.

I really don’t know the answer; to me it doesn’t make a difference for salvation if from the Lord and He has laid down the standard and told us the do’s and don’ts.

Again, you are being evasive, or, at best, dismissive. We would not know that standard unless the Apostles had safeguarded the oral traditions and later wrote these down as Gospels and Epistles. The do’s and don’ts were codified by the Church. Either the Church was inspired by the HS and the rule of the Apostles traditions, or they were not; in which case, we should doubt the Bible as a forgery.

Prior to being called of God; I was self deceived into thinking that I believed in God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and that by being a “good” person I would be in heaven. I didn’t attend a church or anything. I do remember as child looking up at the sky’s and and the creation in general and thinking what a “neat” cool God. I also remember when we studied evolution; never buying into teaching that we came from monkeys. None of that stuff ever seemed like common sense to me. Like how a leaf became a fossil before it would actually dry up and completely decay before anything could fossilize; unless something catastrophic happened. Why people did not believe in a world wide flood when seashells embedded into rocks are everywhere I have ever been.

So how does your interpretation of the Scriptures on a personal basis then differ from your personal interpretations now? Do you consult study guides? Authors like John MacArthur? Are they inspired? Or do you simply agree with them?

All my best . . .

 

[Convert66]

Tanner,

That was the best answer; most Catholics associate that passage with the apostolic succession and the traditions that have evolved over time within the Church.

The Gospels evolved over time within the Church. The High Christology of St. John evolved over time in comparison with the lower Christology of St. Mark. The Doctrine of the Trinity evolved over time. As far as that goes, the concept of the Incarnation evolved over time, from the Protoevangelium in Genesis 3, the Davidic King of the Psalms, the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs and the Wisdom literature, to the emanations of the 2nd Temple period (Philo of Alexandria’s “Logos”) to the Incarnational theology of St. John and St. Paul in the NT (codified hundreds of years after Christ ascended to heaven).

The symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist evolved over time as well. Do you hold to a symbolic interpretation of John chapter 6? That is a tradition of about 400-plus years that evolved from Luther’s “consubstantiation” to Zwingli’s “symbolism” to infrequent communion as an afterthought in so many protestant churches today.

All my best . . .

 

[placido]

placido: I never said Jesus was a weak evangelist; now you are putting words in my mouth!

Hey, ibeleevr, if you don’t understand yourself how do you expect us to understand you?
You said - point blank - that anyone who was evangelized properly would never leave the Church. But Judas left, so it follows that he was never properly evangelized, so it follows that Jesus was a weak evangelist.
If you want to withdraw your earlier statement just do that, but don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth - please.

And for some reason, you guys call the pope holy father, when he is not; that title is reserved for the Almighty Living God!

Firstly, the Pope, like Paul (1 Cor. 4:14-15 ), is a father. Secondly, the Church is the holy nation (1 Pt 2:9). Now, would you have preferred an “unholy father” of a holy nation?

And no, I did not abandon Matthew 28:19-20,

If not, then you are here to evangelize.

but there are some who believe in it, but don’t practice it! I will pray for you, my mixed up friend:thumbsup:

Thanks!

And, believe me, I am a babe when it comes to evangelism, always learning, ever loyal to the Saviour!

I like that ons!

placido

 

[1beleevr]

That “deaf ears” disease, mentioned in post #818, seems to permeate this forum, and is found on both sides of the aisle! There was a thread entitled, " Why won’t noncatholics pray through or to Mary and the saints?" I as a non catholic, have always contended that how you pray, or who you pray to or through, is a matter of PERSONAL choice, and should not be a compulsory thing And trying to use inercessory prayer(which every Christian should believe in) to justify why we should ask Mary, or the saints to intercede for us, is a bit over the top! Some may have intimated that the saints are dead, but you can’t paint all noncatholics with the same broad brush! It is okay, if I pray to God, through Jesus, isn’t it? And it is perfectly okay if you pray, using the saints or Mary!

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,
Your reply to my first post in this thread. You said, in response to my question about Moses’ knowledge of ANE traditions and geneaologies in the Torah, “The Holy Spirit, ya think?”
Catholics woulfd agree with you here, I think. What we differ on is what the correct interpretation of that Revelation (i.e. Sacraments; Authority; Eschatology;, etc.).

Of course. You seem to think the Holy Spirit capable of inspiring men in the past to write the Scriptures, and the Church capable of receiving the HS’s guidance to determine what was canonical and what wasn’t, but incapable of safe-guarding that tradition as Jesus Himself promised. You already believe that St. Peter was infallible at least three times (Acts Jerusalem council; and 1st and 2nd Peter) What practical means were used in making the determination of whether the doctrines contained within a given writing was in the Tradition of the Apostle’s teachings or not? That is the “rule” (which is what “canon” means) and that is how the Church codified the Bible.

** Peter was not infallible; he is human and no human is infallible even when he speaks excathedra; Jesus was the only exception.
The Holy Spirit works through individuals; not church institutions. It is debateable among historians as to when the Roman Catholic Church actually began; seems like most determine that Pope Gregory was first Roman Catholic Pope and by the following listed below; if you read between the lines in blue; you get a hint this is true from Catholic writing.

Doctor of the Church; born at Rome about 540; died 12 March 604.
Gregory is certainly one of the most notable figures in Ecclesiastical History. He has exercised in many respects a momentous influence on the doctrine, the organization, and the discipline of the Catholic Church. To him we must look for an explanation of the religious situation of the Middle Ages; indeed, if no account were taken of his work, the evolution of the form of medieval Christianity would be almost inexplicable. And further, in so far as the modern Catholic system is a legitimate development of medieval Catholicism, of this too Gregory may not unreasonably be termed the Father. Almost all the leading principles of the later Catholicism are found, at any rate in germ, in Gregory the Great. (F.H. Dudden, “Gregory the Great”, 1, p. v).

But I’m ready to debate over this topic at this time**

Thus the need of a rule for distinguishing man’s opinions, from what is inspired by the HS.
Let’s pick two “traditions” that are in opposition to the Scriptures and discuss those. I’m encouraged that you admit that Protestants have said God did not do it right by removing seven books from the canon accepted by the Apostles and the Authors of the NT (the LXX includes the Apocryphal, or deutero-canonical books).

** Protestants do not accept books as inspired or God-breathed because they contain, historical, geographical, chronological and doctrinal errors contrary to Scripture. They were never quote by Jesus or the apostles concerning these books. The Jews rejected this as canon; I trust them more than the Catholic Church. when you look at the timing of the second canon; it is obvious that it was canonized in haste in response to the reformation movement that threatened Rome.**

You are being evasive.

No I’m not.

That is what Catholics mean by the HS preserving Sacred Tradition, as opposed to little “t” traditions.
And we are all grateful that Moses remembered what was written thereon once he had broken them.

**God wrote them twice; not once, but twice.
**

Again, you are being evasive, or, at best, dismissive. We would not know that standard unless the Apostles had safeguarded the oral traditions and later wrote these down as Gospels and Epistles. The do’s and don’ts were codified by the Church. Either the Church was inspired by the HS and the rule of the Apostles traditions, or they were not; in which case, we should doubt the Bible as a forgery.

**Subjective and wishful thinking IMO and no I’m not being evasive or dismissive just because an answer does not satisfy you personally. Questions such as that are not always as simple as appear to be and so careful thought must be taken and in light of His word and His character and attributes; something I don’t take very lightly.
**

So how does your interpretation of the Scriptures on a personal basis then differ from your personal interpretations now? Do you consult study guides? Authors like John MacArthur? Are they inspired? Or do you simply agree with them?
All my best . . .

**Before their was none; meaning I read parts of the Bible from time to time, but not with any prayer and supplication, nor with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Now I understand a great deal with the holy Spirit as the guide, who imparts spiritual wisdom, discernment and guidance concerning the Scriptures. This is how most of God’s “elect” come to the truth of the gospel and the deeper things of God through the Scripture.

I got to go tobed; I’m sure i will review this post in the morning and see something wrong or skipped, but I’m so tired I just got toget some sleep…good night and Lord willing; i 'll be back soon.**

 

[placido]

**Lu 15:7 -
"I tell you that in the same way, there will be {more} joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Lu 15:10 -
“In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

This are part of two separate parables; there is no indication that the “saints” are rejoicing and it does not even say the angels are rejoicing; but somebody or bodies or rejoicing it appears. the point of the parables is the joy of heaven over a repentant sinner; joy over salvation.

I looked over both of these a few times and cannot conclude either way; because based on the parable their is indication that more than just God is rejoicing; although it does say in the presence of the angles. Saints are not mentioned or indicated; so I would conclude on the saints aspect that Scripture is silent on the question.

I do plan to look even more for indications in other parts of Scripture because Scripture will testify to itself. If I find anything different; then i will let you know.

My memory isn’t that good; at age of 81 you will probably have a little trouble as well…just kidding; I’m not 81.**

God bless!

Now we do agree brother because “based on the parable their is indication that more than just God is rejoicing”. That is contrary to what you said before, when you tried to exclude the possibility of “more than just God” rejoicing.
Now we know there is a possibility of more than just God rejoicing in heaven. But why not look at the possibility of angels and saints rejoicing with God? Or, who else is in heaven?

placido

 

[guanophore]

I did answer the question in previous posts, but if you do not or can not answer the question, then that is okay to.

What you are saying is that you use your own experience as the standard.

He reveals Himself through His Word.  Or in you case through your Church.

He does not separate Himself from His Holy Bride, the Church. He reveals Himself through the Written word, and the Living Word in the Church. The Church produced the NT because Jesus revealed Himself through the Church.

To say it is an ordinary book in the sense that it cannot teach is stupid IMO.

Is the Bible God breathed? Is anything that is god breahted, like yourself, for example alive?

Tanner, no one here (except you) has said that the Bible is an “ordinary book”.

Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. However, this does not mean that we should ascribe characteristics to it that we should not. Jesus founded a church, and appointed teachers (persons gifted) to build up the saints for the work of the ministry. Teaching is an activity of persons. You teach yourself from the Bible,a nd believe it is God teaching.

No comment.

Do you then agree that some people make an idol out of their bible? Or have you no comment because you realize you might be one?

Since it is the very voice of God; go ahead and call me idolatress towards God; it would be an honor.

The thing with Scripture, like any other writing or speaking that goes into our senses, is that our brains interpret/filter what we hear and read. The problem is not that it is the Word of God, but the condition of the filters/perceptions through which it passes. For example, you cannot see that the Scriptures reflect Catholic teaching because you have an anti-Catholic prejudice that prevents you. If you find honor in this state of mind, I guess that is your perogative.

** Lets hear your take on it, should be entertaining to see how you turn incense into words and prayers. this is so obvious and basic, but I would love to hear your thoughts.**

Do you not think that the Jews were familiar with the use of smoke as a metaphor for prayers rising to heaven?

**If that opinion is truth, then it always stands above what is not true…right? **

No. Truth is high above any of our individual opinions. If it is Truth, then it is not your opinion. It means you have clung to a higher order of reality. However, it does seem clear that you believe your opinion is, indeed, synonomous with Truth, and therefore, is high above all others.
Tanner9188;5517261:

Does that surprise you in light of what Scripture teaches? you can claim all you want and many do, but only a few have the Resident Truth Teacher; just as Scripture teaches.

Yes, it does surprise me. It seems to me that common sense would be sufficient to see that so many different people coming up with so many opposite conclusions, cannot all be led to their conclusions by the same HS. It seems like you believe that those who do not agree with your interprestation are lacking “the resident Truth Teacher”. Again, we come to the standard. How are we to measure why you are right, and they are wrong. The last time I asked this, you basically responded that it is based upon your expereinces.
That makes you the ultimate authority.

 

[1beleevr]

Okay, placido, you need to come in out of left field I did not say"point blank" that anyone properly taught and baptized, could not be evangelized out of the church; I said out of anything, that they firmly believed inAnd the situation with Judas, had nothing to do with whether or not he was proprely evangelized, by Jesus, or anyone else Don’t you realize, that the whole betrayal, capture, trial, and crucifixion were ALL part of God’s plan? The Jews wanted to kill Jesus, but knew that they had to convince the Romans that He was guilty, as they(the Jews) had no authority to execute anyone! So Judas was used by Satan and God both. Jesus had to be crucified, it was prophesied; so, in order to make it happen, voila, Judas was chosen to get the ball rolling! I believe that the Romans, finally deferred to the Jews, because they were afraid the would riot! So, you see, placido, it makes no difference whether Judas was properly evangelized, he had been chosen to do the dirty deed And, besides, isn’t evangelism for the unsaved, anyway? I must have been a bit confused by your question about abandoning Matthew 28:19-20 I thought you meant, that as a Christian, I had abandoned it, and didn’t believe in it And, no, I am not here to evangelize; any more than catholics are asking thoughtful questions of non-catholics!

 

[guanophore]

**That is a complete fallacy and not Biblical; the part highlighted in red is what I am referring to. No where in Scripture does it say the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is able to inerrantly interpret Scripture in regards to anything. **

You interpret the scripture differently. Those that wrote the passages taught that they referred to the Church (being led into all Truth). You disregard the audience to whom the promises are given, and usurp them to yourself. You believe you are guided personally in separation from the Church founded by Christ, and that what was revealed to them is now irrrelevant.

1 Timothy 3:15 "I am writing these things to you {GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS}**

, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, {I write} so that you will know how one {INDIVIDUAL} ought to conduct himself {INDIVIDUAL} in the household {GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS} of God, which is the church of the living God* {ALL BELIEVERS THROUGHOUT THE AGES}*, the pillar and support of the truth."

This is a good example of how you insert your ideas into the Scripture. You keep adding the words “individual believers” here where it does not exist. On the contrary, the Church ws defined by the Apostles as those who are in communion with the bishop. These individual believers were joined to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, about which Paul is talking.

For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we {EACH IN THE GROUP OF BELIEVERS}

have the mind of Christ.

“We” in this passage refers to those who are among, and in unity with, the Apostles.
When individuals separate themselves from the Apostolic succession,as your spiritual forefathers have done, they no longer can be assurred to have the mind of Christ.

For to us *God revealed {them} through the Spirit {PAUL TO A GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL BELIEVERS} *

; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the {thoughts} of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the {thoughts} of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the *Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
*

Those individual believers are part of the Catholic Church. They are not just a “group” but are members of His One Body. They are in unity with the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops. The “us” is this unity.

.
I can go on and on and the lessons are to individuals and/or groups of individuals, which are the royal priesthood of believers; the pillar of truth and support of the church of Jesus Christ.

This is a deficient understanding of “church”. The individuals are members of the One Body. It is not a spattering of unrelated “groups” but those who are in unity with the Apostles. You are misquoting scripture here, also. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

Notice it is God that gives understanding to the believer; it is God who leads one to truth. There are even more direct quotes I could have used concerning the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer concerning His work as the resident Truth-Teacher.

Which teacher will not lead an individual into a different direction than He has led believers that have gone on before him.

Now for the real question; is Scripture correct or is your statement correct; both cannot be correct because their is one absolute truth in this regard. What say you?

That your perceptions of Scripture are incorrect.

Within the local and visible Body only.

You are inserting words into the scriptures. The scriptures do not say this. Your interpretation is a way to thwart the authority that God appointed to the Church.

 

[placido]

Okay, placido, you need to come in out of left field I did not say"point blank" that anyone properly taught and baptized, could not be evangelized out of the church; I said out of anything, that they firmly believed in

The point remains: one can be evangelized “out of anything” that they firmly believed in. Someone who firmly believed in Christ can become an atheist or a muslim (fact); an agnostic can become a Catholic (fact).

And the situation with Judas, had nothing to do with whether or not he was proprely evangelized, by Jesus, or anyone else Don’t you realize, that the whole betrayal, capture, trial, and crucifixion were ALL part of God’s plan? The Jews wanted to kill Jesus, but knew that they had to convince the Romans that He was guilty, as they(the Jews) had no authority to execute anyone! So Judas was used by Satan and God both. Jesus had to be crucified, it was prophesied; so, in order to make it happen, voila, Judas was chosen to get the ball rolling! I believe that the Romans, finally deferred to the Jews, because they were afraid the would riot! So, you see, placido, it makes no difference whether Judas was properly evangelized, he had been chosen to do the dirty deed:

That being the case, then it makes no difference whether one was properly evangelized, because Scripture has to come true (2 Tim 4:3-4).

And, besides, isn’t evangelism for the unsaved, anyway?

What do you mean? Do you mean you believe Catholics are saved and there is no need to evangelize them?

I must have been a bit confused by your question about abandoning Matthew 28:19-20 I thought you meant, that as a Christian, I had abandoned it, and didn’t believe in it:

No, that is not what I meant.

And, no, I am not here to evangelize; any more than catholics are asking thoughtful questions of non-catholics!

Okay then.

placido

 

[zerinus]

No - you’re playing games.
You’re intimating that praying to the saints could be as sinful as conjuring up the dead.

Not exactly. I was just being a little facetious in my reply to guanophore. I don’t think that the Catholic practice of praying to the saints is as serious as Saul’s attempt at consulting a necromancer to talk to the dead. I think that Catholics do it out of ignorance for the most part, and I don’t think that God takes offense at their actions. I am sure that God hears their prayers regardless, and may even decide to answer them in His own ways because of their sincerity notwithstanding their follies. Nevertheless, I don’t think that those prayers have any efficacy in their own right, and I don’t think that they are in accordance with the will of God or the order which He has established.

You’re arguing against what you charge is the Catholic position - and yet don’t have a clue. That’s how anti-Catholics operate on this board.

We Catholics have explained over and oner again on this thread that we do NOT worhip the saints - we do NOT try to conjure them up and we do NOT
and it falls on deaf ears.
I think those ears are as prideful as thay are deaf - and THAT, my friend IS a sin…

I don’t think that you are trying to conjure them up either; and if you think that what you are doing is okay, that is fine by me. But it does not prevent me from having a different theological opinion about it than you do.

From my point of view, prayer is an act of worship that should only be addressed to a deity. I am already familiar with the Catholic arguments. They say that praying to the Saints is like asking a friend to do you a favor. But that really is not the case. A friend is someone you can see and know if you can trust. A (dead) saint is a supernatural being whom you cannot see. It is purely an act of faith. You are putting your faith or trust in the belief that that saints is able to hear your prayers, is able to act on them, and his actions are effective on your behalf. It is an exercise of faith. But what if that faith is misplaced? And what is the justification for that faith? I see none in what God has revealed.

Another argument that the Catholics bring is that they are only asking the saint to intercede on their behalf, rather than do anything directly for them. That is even worse!

Firstly, if they believe that God is omnipotent, they should believe that He is able to hear and answer their prayers without any intermediate link in between, as Jesus said: “. . . for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him” (Matthew 6:8). Do you not believe that? If you do, why do you think you need a postman in heaven to pass on your messages to Him?

Secondly, if there is the need for someone to act as a mediator between God and man, there is such a Mediator provided and He is Jesus Christ. There is not, never need be, and never can be any other, again as Paul said: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5); or as Peter said: “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); or as Paul again says: “. . . but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Hebrews 9:12); or again: “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). There are more such references if you wanted to look for them, that only one mediator is required between man and God, and that is Jesus Christ. And both of them are God, and both are omnipotent and omniscient, and can hear our prayers direct, and there is no need for a postman in heaven to convey our messages to them.

These are the theological arguments that you need to look at, rather than getting worked up about accusation that you are “worshipping the saints”.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,

The Gospels evolved over time within the Church. The High Christology of St. John evolved over time in comparison with the lower Christology of St. Mark. The Doctrine of the Trinity evolved over time. As far as that goes, the concept of the Incarnation evolved over time, from the Protoevangelium in Genesis 3, the Davidic King of the Psalms, the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs and the Wisdom literature, to the emanations of the 2nd Temple period (Philo of Alexandria’s “Logos”) to the Incarnational theology of St. John and St. Paul in the NT (codified hundreds of years after Christ ascended to heaven).

The symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist evolved over time as well. Do you hold to a symbolic interpretation of John chapter 6? That is a tradition of about 400-plus years that evolved from Luther’s “consubstantiation” to Zwingli’s “symbolism” to infrequent communion as an afterthought in so many protestant churches today.

All my best . . .

**
That was very interesting to say the least. I wonder why Jesus didn’t take a knife and cut off 11-12 pieces of His flesh, then scoop the blood, that would result from the cutting of the flesh and give to disciples His blood…haven’t you ever wondered that? Does that sound ridiculous or is it just me?

In acts they speak of the new believers, the church, gathering together and breaking of bread. I wonder why they said breaking of bread instead of eating of flesh?

In John 6; I have always wondered why the disciples that took Him literally were the ones that walked away in unbelief, while His true disciples understood He was speaking in spiritual terms; they were the ones that understood and stayed; for even Peter said He had the WORDS of eternal life. He wasn’t the brightest bulb of the bunch; yet He understood.

I have often wondered how people connect the “Bread of Life” sermon with the Lord’s Supper; there is no correlation to the two unless you were one of those who walked away in unbelief; became an apostate and started your own cannibal christian church…have you ever wondered that?

I also find it interesting that His blood; even in the passages that speak of the Lord’s supper, always refer to His blood as representative of the New Covenant, which is the symbol of His pouring out of blood for an acceptable, once and for all, sacrifice for sins of the world.
“This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink {it,} in remembrance of Me.”

Then Jesus Himself said, " For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Call me crazy, but I think He meant this in a spiritual sense; for the OT law prohibited the eating of any human flesh; so I wonder why Jesus would violate His own standard…He must change His standards.**