Losing memory and repentance

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

Surely somewhere in the Apostle Paul’s letters is a section on Sacraments. …

Virtually all his epistles explain the Sacraments. One of your favorite Protestant misunderstandings stems from St. Paul, Eph 2:8-10. It isn’t an explanation of salvation by grace alone. It is a description of how we receive grace through the Sacraments.

Surely this specific word is stated somewhere by Peter in his letters…

Nope. There are many terms which have been developed throughout Church history which are not in Scripture at all. Even some Protestant terms like “altar call” and “sola scriptura” are not in Scripture. Unlike Catholic Doctrine though, Protestant doctrines which disagree with Catholic Teaching, contradict the Word of God.

If the traditions reflect the reality of the 1st. Century Church, it should be a carbon copy of the intent found in their letters. Wouldn’t you think?

On the contrary, that is an unrealistic idea which is proven wrong by Christ’s predictions. Does a seed look like a tree?

Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: 32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Just so, the seminal Doctrines of Jesus Christ have been developed and understood more thoroughly as time has marched on. Because the Church relentlessly continues to obey Christ’s commandment.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[tgGodsway]

Because you read Scripture anachronistically, you make unrealistic demands of Scripture. Asking for things which are not yet developed. The Church wrote the New Testament at a time when the Doctrines of Jesus Christ were recently born and not yet fully understood.

The Apostles penned the revelation as a full and complete revelation from it’s inception, to be discovered by each individual as the Holy Spirit teaches. As Jude, the half brother of Jesus stated, it was a faith “once delivered unto the saints.” (1:3)

Just because the RCC coined the word Trinity, for instance, down the road, doesn’t mean the concept was hidden or misunderstood before the RCC put their hands on it. Of course there will always be people who don’t fully understand the concept, but that doesn’t mean all people in that day did not understand it. The Apostles and the Apostolic Church penned the belief (in a triune God) to be shared in each generation and they did so without the word Trinity mentioned.

So,… as important as the concept of the trinity is, the RCC’s choice of word to explain it, has no biblical precedence.

The concept of transubstantiation is a different story. (With all of it’s theological details explained in later centuries) it is not to be considered in the same way as the Trinity, because of it’s lack of biblical support in those very specific details. If RC Tradition is to be trusted, it can only be trusted as a carbon copy of Apostolic authority found in the writings of holy Scripture. Those writers go absolutely silent to all of the nuances of the transubstantiation belief. This should bring a red flag to you, but it doesn’t.

I’m still waiting, (since last year) for someone to show me the raw details of theology contained in the N.T. to justify the specific teachings on this belief. They can’t because it wasn’t developed yet! Therefore the truth of it must have been unknown to the Apostles. Really? No.

This suggest that the early Church, (meaning, those in the upper room in Acts 2) did not share the same beliefs as the RCC does in later centuries in regard to the practice of “sharing the bread and cup.”

There are many terms which have been developed throughout Church history which are not in Scripture at all. Even some Protestant terms like “altar call” and “sola scriptura” are not in Scripture.

I would agree, and I would be the last person to argue for an “alter call.” As far as sola scriptura is concerned, Luther was exposing the lack of ink in the carbon copy called tradition. Catholic Tradition doesn’t reflect the intent of scripture in my view, but in many cases contradicts it. For you, tradition becomes an authority above scripture. But the burden is still on you to show how tradition only reflects the thoughts and intentions found in the inspired writings of the eye witnesses.

When Paul said “follow MY traditions,” those traditions were not at liberty to evolve into things unrecognizable. In other words, the practice should never go beyond Paul’s understanding.

 

[De_Maria]

The Apostles penned the revelation as a full and complete revelation from it’s inception, to be discovered by each individual as the Holy Spirit teaches.

On the contrary, even Scripture tells us that the Jesus told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead us into the fullness of Truth.

As Jude, the half brother of Jesus stated, it was a faith “once delivered unto the saints.” (1:3)

But not in writing. It was delivered by Jesus Christ in oral Teaching and by demonstrations, rituals and signs. As St. John said:

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Just because the RCC coined the word Trinity, for instance, down the road, doesn’t mean the concept was hidden or misunderstood before the RCC put their hands on it.

That is precisely what it means. It is the Catholic Church which, by the authority and power of the Holy Spirit, developed the terminology which would best explain the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

Of course there will always be people who don’t fully understand the concept, but that doesn’t mean all people in that day did not understand it.

I didn’t say it did. But the Catholic Church was sent to the entire world. Not just to the people who already understood the Teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact, the Catholic Church was sent to the people who did not know and needed to be educated about the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Apostles and the Apostolic Church penned the belief (in a triune God) to be shared in each generation and they did so without the word Trinity mentioned.

But they didn’t just pen the beliefs. They have continually taught them by word, before they penned anything down. Jesus sent them to Teach, not to write.

So,… as important as the concept of the trinity is, the RCC’s choice of word to explain it, has no biblical precedence.

Because the Bible is preceded by Sacred Tradition.

The concept of transubstantiation is a different story. (With all of it’s theological details explained in later centuries) it is not to be considered in the same way as the Trinity, because of it’s lack of biblical support in those very specific details.

On the contrary, it has just as much Biblical support as the Trinity. The fact that you don’t accept the evidence does not mean that it isn’t there. It just means you have decided to reject it.

If RC Tradition is to be trusted,

It is certainly to be trusted since Jesus Christ continues to Teach through the Catholic Church.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with @tgGodsway

it can only be trusted as a carbon copy of Apostolic authority found in the writings of holy Scripture.

On the contrary, I only believe in the authenticity and veracity of the Scriptures because the Catholic Church penned the New Testament and discerned the inspired books of the Old Testament.

Those writers go absolutely silent to all of the nuances of the transubstantiation belief. This should bring a red flag to you, but it doesn’t.

You should be able do see transubstantiation in these words, but you don’t:

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

I’m still waiting, (since last year) for someone to show me the raw details of theology contained in the N.T. to justify the specific teachings on this belief. They can’t because it wasn’t developed yet! Therefore the truth of it must have been unknown to the Apostles. Really? No.

I’ve shown you the details since last year. Either you ignored them or simply thought that your empty rejections were enough to contradict the evidence. But they are not.

This suggest that the early Church, (meaning, those in the upper room in Acts 2) did not share the same beliefs as the RCC does in later centuries in regard to the practice of “sharing the bread and cup.”

No idea how you jump to that illogical conclusion. Those in the upper room shared all the beliefs of the Catholic Church today, but in seed form.

I would agree, and I would be the last person to argue for an “alter call.” As far as sola scriptura is concerned, Luther was exposing the lack of ink in the carbon copy called tradition.

Luther made up a way to justify breaking away from the Church and he didn’t mind contradicting Scripture to do it. Thus, he invented Scripture alone. But Scripture contradicts that doctrine.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Catholic Tradition doesn’t reflect the intent of scripture in my view, but in many cases contradicts it.

It is Protestant doctrine which contradicts Scripture.

For you, tradition becomes an authority above scripture.

Sacred Tradition is the bedrock upon which the New Testament was written. Jesus Christ did not write one word of Scripture. He passed down His Teachings and and in so doing, began the Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Church.

But the burden is still on you to show how tradition only reflects the thoughts and intentions found in the inspired writings of the eye witnesses.

There is no burden for me. I am the one who follows the Truths passed down by Jesus Christ. You can only trace your errors to Luther.

When Paul said “follow MY traditions,” those traditions were not at liberty to evolve into things unrecognizable. In other words, the practice should never go beyond Paul’s understanding.

That should provide a red flag for the teachings you are trying to pass on. None of which St. Paul imagined you would ever twist his words into.

 

[c1949]

I thin it’s interesting how the modern Jews rationalize repentance. It’s very important. But repentance can begin with that first twinge of realization that we have done something wrong. Repentance can be much larger, up to pleading with someone to forgive us for what we have done.

Switching gears, I ran across a book entitled Key Documents to Understanding the Great Apostasy. The first essay is described as being written by a professor of theology in France around 1801. There were not many priests around after the French Revolution, and this Fr Demaris writes with an encouraging message that, lacking priests, we are not to be deprived of the graces of the sacraments for that reason, if we are properly disposed. God established the sacraments for us, but God is not bound by them to bestow grace, the life of God, on us.

I think that speaks to situations of sudden incapacitation, for example. Ideally, we are always prepared for the end of our life, not putting off or ignoring our spiritual life.