Jude 1:4 what is he saying?

[po18guy]

You can’t be serious.

Show where the bible teaches bible alone.

Can’t.

Where does Jesus say to run to the (not even written) bible , argue over it and then splinter into more denominations than the sand of the seashore?

He did not.

Your Savior said, “He who HEARS you HEARS Me.” Luke 7:16

Paul wrote that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.” NOT the bible, which is easily twisted by the ignorant and unstable. Read 2 Peter.

So, where, my dear fellow, do you get the idea that ‘bible alone’ is even Christian?

From Man. European man. 16th century European man. Not Christ.

The sooner you realize that you are not only wrong, but salvation-at-risk wrong, the better.

I admire your zeal and faith. I detest the man-made doctrines/traditions of men that you have been taught - those who taught you bear the greater sin.

 

[stpurl]

Who used the term “The Church is the head of Christ?”

 

[stpurl]

Where exactly does the Bible claim to be the Authority? And what does the Bible itself give as the authority, check for “pillar and foundation of the truth”?

Can the Bible (an inanimate work, however God-breathed, of which no two individual beings, let alone any two (or more) individual churches agree on interpretation of core doctrines), be an authority? No, a book cannot be an authority. The authority must rest with the person who interprets the book.

If as we believe the authority and interpreter of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, and the Church simply proclaims what the Spirit teaches (the Catholic Church does not ‘make up dogma/doctrine’, she simply proclaims that which the Spirit gives and teaches and ‘leads to all truth’), then we must agree, as Scripture itself says, that the Holy Spirit cannot teach against Himself, correct?

So that means that if group A feels the Holy Spirit teaches infant baptism as salvific, and group B feels the Spirit teaches adult baptism as salvific, and group C feels the Spirit teaches that baptism is a symbol only and something else is salvific, then the Spirit is not teaching three different and contradictory truths, but rather, that one of these positions (or something close to it) is RIGHT and the others are either ‘less right’ or wrong.

If baptism is salvific, then either infant baptism is right and adult baptism is right in claiming baptism as salvific but wrong in limiting to adults, and symbolic baptism is completely wrong; or adult baptism is right, infant baptism is right in being salvific but wrong in offering to infants, and symbolic baptism is completely wrong, OR symbolic baptism is right, and infant and adult baptism being salvific is wrong.

So you’ve already admitted that in at least one core dogma, different protestant groups have different claims of the Holy Spirit teaching ‘different truths’, AND every one of them uses “The Bible” as a claim to back up their teaching.

How do you explain that?

 

[guanophore]

A Protestant cant argue anything. … Heretics.

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Your post seems rather uncharitable toward our siblings in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

the issue before is today is that the Church has chosen to set itself up as the authority over the word of God rather than being submissive to the word of God.

Actually, this is not an issue “today”, but has been since the beginning of the Church. All of the early heresies were fought and overcome by the faith that was passed down from the Apostles.

The New Testament is a collection of Catholic books. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. It was written by, for, and about the Catholic faith. This is why, in order for it to be understood correctly, it must be read in the context of the Catholic faith.

The question is where do you get the idea that the Church is the head of Christ?

Christ is not confined to the pages of writings, however Holy they may be. He founded a Church, and promised to lead that Church into “all Truth”.

Where do you get the idea that creating doctrines 1500 years after the Church was founded is acceptable?

Well, your buddy up there stated that the Bible, which contains God’s word, is subservient to the Church.

It might be more accurate to say that the INTERPRETATION of the Bible comes through the Church. The Church did not produce anything that is contrary to the faith we received from the Apostles.

If God’s word, which carries his command and his authority is subservient to the Church, what does that say about his view of who is the head and who is the body?

The Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition are two equal strands of authority that compliment each other. There is no conflict or competition between them.

 

[Nita]

Well, your buddy up there stated that the Bible, which contains God’s word, is subservient to the Church.

It is subservient to the Church in the sense that it is the Church that oversees the correct interpretation of Scripture. This is how Our Lord arranged for us to be able to know what is true when there are different conflicting interpretations.
Matthew 16:17-20; Luke 10:16; 1 Timothy 3:15

God’s word is the God-breathed commands and revelation of the Father, ultimately revealed in the person of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but written by human members of the Church. And of the many writings by early Christians, it was the Catholic Church that determined which writings would be included in the Bible.

If God’s word, which carries his command and his authority is subservient to the Church, what does that say about his view of who is the head and who is the body?

There is a line in the Matthew passage above that so often seems to go unnoticed.
Mt. 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

So you see, it is both. It is God’s truth, and the Father who reveals, controls, and oversees what gets decreed; and He does it through the Pope, the visible head of Jesus’ Church here on earth.

.

 

[Onthisrock84]

They deny the authority of the Church yet accept its canon that was decided formally in 397 A.D. I tell this to any Protestant or any of those apostasy spewing groups like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses that many early Christians went to their graves thinking certain books were scripture that didn’t end up being in the bible.

I would actually have more respect if the ones who deny the Churches authority besides the Orthodox, chose their own scriptures. It would make me respect their resolve much more.

 

[guanophore]

I would actually have more respect if the ones who deny the Churches authority besides the Orthodox, chose their own scriptures. It would make me respect their resolve much more.

It seems odd that you would criticize their lack of acceptance for Church authority, while denying it yourself!

I think that most Protestants have no idea how they got their Bible, nor do they care.

 

[Onthisrock84]

How exactly am I against church authority? Why on earth should I have to defend myself on here for my resolve in the Church? This isn’t CARM…

 

[guanophore]

How exactly am I against church authority?

I admit it is a bit of a puzzle. I posted quotes from the Catechism in response to your uncharitable position toward Protestants, and you proceeded to defend the reasons you retain a lack of respect.

Why on earth should I have to defend myself on here for my resolve in the Church? This isn’t CARM…

You don’t have to defend yourself. I was pointing out that your comments appeared to contradict what the Church teaches. This seems to be a rejection of the authority of the Church.

Yes, thanks be to God, this isn’t CARM!! They are far less charitable toward Catholics than you have been to your non-Catholic siblings in Christ!

 

[thistle]

First of all, the idea of predestination is a Catholic doctrine. Read up on your Augustine. Predestination is more clearly presented and affirmed in other scripture texts, and this passage seems to support it as well, although I admit this one could be read a few different ways. I think the most troubling aspect of your quote however is that you stated you believe in free will, therefore the scripture can’t mean what it means. That is a backwards mode of thinking. Doctrine needs to be derived from scripture, not from our presuppositions.

The Church teaches nobody is predestined to go to Hell.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Judas Iscariot

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

What God is saying is that:
Some people choose Hell by their lifestyle and by rejecting Jesus. And that God is omniscient and knows beforehand our complete future

Such as Judas and the pharisees choosing hell was prophecied in the psalms.

Jesus told the apostles: ‘None of you shall be losr. Except the son of perdition whom it has been foretold.’

 

[Nicholas]

I was simply saying that I knew the verse could not be understood in the sense of double predestination because I know that we have free will and a benevolent God would not damn people to Hell without them choosing it by their own free will. Also, I believe that Holy Scripture should be interpreted in a way that takes into account how it has always been interpreted.

 

[Mintaka]

Going back to the original question…

The Greek word “palai” (long ago), and the Latin “olim” that St. Jerome used to translate it, doesn’t necessarily mean a zillion years ago. It can mean, “several years back.” Similarly, “krima” (condemnation) doesn’t necessarily mean eternal judgment; it could easily be talking about just the normal judgment by normal leaders of the Church. “progegrammenoi” means “written down, written about.”

So basically, the simplest interpretation is that St. Jude is saying, “Look, you guys should know that the people bugging your local church are the same creepy guys we had to throw out, way back when. Remember when we wrote you about them? Yeah, those guys. Don’t listen to those idiots!”

There was a lot of this kind of info-passing in St. Paul’s letters, and we know from the Fathers that the churches had to keep doing it. Since the churches gave help and food and places to stay to their brother and sister Christians, there were some people who would travel around and take advantage. (And there were plenty of false preachers and false prophets, just as there are today.) So it was important to know what people were really in communion with the Church, and what people were just into the occult, or fraudsters, or making stuff up.

Now, if you want to move onto a spiritual meaning for the passage, that’s fine; but it’s not necessary to understand the passage.

 

[Onthisrock84]

I am not uncharitable to them. Let me explain.
Should we love all brethren in Christ? Yes. We should be examples to bring them back to the Church. I admit I fail at this many times.

The main issue I have is not what the Church teaches but what it does on the unofficial side.
I feel like many in the Church now want to pretend the reformation or, the revolution since the Council of Trent was the true reformation; but now want to paint it in a positive light like almost admitting that those people were justified. They may well have been justified to want reform, this has happened many times in the church history, many of those who did are now great saints.
Another is to willingly separate from the church and see what the aftermath is? We went from having one Church ( I do include the various Orthodox as still being part of the Church but in schism, which is the official church stance as well), to thousands. It caused the west in my opinion to go down the slope to where we see it today.
Yes it is not the fault of people whose ancestors were led astray 500 years ago into heresy, however it is also not in the churches best interest to almost celebrate it. The Church had no reason to take part in the 500th anniversary commemorations of the reformation. By doing so it made us look like we are weak and admitting guilt. The Church cannot give into the temptations of modernism. Some claim it already has, and sure the reforms of the 60s and 70s were such however the OF is a valid legit liturgy when done properly. Yes abuses happen and traditionalists point that out but they happened even when the EF was the norm. Actually I remember my grandfather telling me he had one priest who never did the last gospel! That was at the time a terrible liturgical abuse! If a priest just omitted doing a part of the mass for the hell of it these days people would be freaking out on these boards. All I’m saying is its nothing new.
We should not however celebrate what literal heretics did. The Church doesn’t use the word to refer to modern Protestants however when it comes to the original reformers, yes they are heretics and the papal bull excommunicating Luther as such is still binding.

 

[ZMystiCat]

THey handed the faith on and etore the bible. which is subsefviant to the Church.

Well, your buddy up there stated that the Bible, which contains God’s word, is subservient to the Church.

Just to point out: The Church itself teaches that The Magisterium is the servant of the Scripture. Specifically, this is referenced in CCC 84-85, which says:

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”…

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it…”

In other words, when the Church is declaring teaching, it is the one that is subservient to the Scripture, not the other way around. With that said, the Church, as the pillar and foundation of truth, is a perfect servant. We, as individuals, are imperfect and prone to many doctrinal errors, as expressed very well by St. Vincent of Lerins:

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters…Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

So we should reject the Protestant notion of interpreting Scripture on our own as if we could be suitable servants of it. We can read Scripture and learn from it, but any doctrine that we discern should be joined together with what the Church says is true, even if that means discarding our incorrect notions.

On the flip side, saying that the Scripture is subservient to the Church is, by the Church’s own teaching, completely backwards.

A Protestant cant argue anything. Seeing as Martin Luther wanted to take Jude out of the New Testament.

And Protestants have, for the most part, rejected that. You’d be hard pressed to find any major Protestant group today who doesn’t consider Jude canonical. Perhaps most relevant here, Calvinists consider it canonical and, in the case of Presbyterians, stated explicitly in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and they’re the ones most liable to treat this passage as support for double predestination.

 

[guanophore]

I am not uncharitable to them.

Saying they have no right to say anything about the Scriptures because they are “heretics” is counterproductive. It is not conducive to dialogue or unity.

The main issue I have is …the Church … now want to pretend the reformation or, the revolution since the Council of Trent was the true reformation; but now want to paint it in a positive light like almost admitting that those people were justified.

I am not sure what has been produced by the Church that would support this, but this is contrary to what the Catechism teaches.

They may well have been justified to want reform

This is all that has been said. Separation is not conducive to reform either, but there were valid grievances. Failing to acknowledge this is not conducive to unity either!

Another is to willingly separate from the church and see what the aftermath is?

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

You appear to be charging current protestants with the sin of separation. But if not, and you are only charging the original reformers, this is still not productive to unity. The Church has already ruled on those that separated and it is for us to pray for them, and those that have been misled by their deeds.

It caused the west in my opinion to go down the slope to where we see it today.

You will get no argument from me about that, but blame does nothing toward unity. We have much more in common than not.

it is also not in the churches best interest to almost celebrate it.

I don’t see that, so I can’t really respond to it. I was talking about what is written in the catechism. If you believe those words are a celebration of the wounds to unity, then you are not in line with the teaching of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

The Church had no reason to take part in the 500th anniversary commemorations of the reformation. By doing so it made us look like we are weak and admitting guilt.

Again, I am unfamiliar with this happening, but I do agree that separation should not be celebrated. People on CAF used to post “Reformation Day” threads that were quite unwelcome here. Sin is never an occasion to celebrate.

As far as being “weak”, yes, we should glory in our weakness, for in it, He is made strong. And as far as guilt, of course we should take responsibility for wrongdoing, ask forgiveness, and make reparation. Catholics are sinners and pretending we have no sin is a sin in itself!

The Church cannot give into the temptations of modernism.

No, but taking responsibility for wrongs committed by Catholics is good.

The Church doesn’t use the word to refer to modern Protestants however when it comes to the original reformers

It sounded like you used it for modern Protestants.

 

[Benadam]

Specifically, “who long ago were designated for this condemnation”.

It’s not as much a who as a behavior that is destined to repeat because sin obstructs freedom and causes human history to be cyclic. These intruders are walking in the circle of iniquity laid before them and like Judas fulfill the unholy office of sin that echoes down the ages from the Archetype of sin who himself abandoned his place that God prepared and went to his own. They are trapped in the cyclic loop of the dragon.