L
lak611
Guest
So are you saying that none of the people who died before Christ’s incarnation were saved?
- Status
N
newbie1234
Guest
My faith is based on what the bible teaches.
Your faith is based on primarily tradition with bible truth secondary.
Don’t ask me to believe something that your tradition teaches especially if it contradicts a verse in the bible(luke1:47). To me the bible is the final authority not the church. To the Church, sacred tradition trumps the bible.
N
newbie1234
Guest
No. They were saved by their faith in the OT.So are you saying that none of the people who died before Christ’s incarnation were saved?
Mary did not express her faith while she was in the womb. How could she?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
But your faith is not really based on the Bible. It is based upon the errant belief that the Bible alone is the sole authority and even the Bible itself does not teach that.
Sacred Tradition helps insure that we understand what the Bible is saying. If the passages of the New Testament that I see on the Eucharistic Real Presence tell me something and I can go back and read the historic writings of the ECF and they say the same thing that the NT says and that the Catholic Church teaches and has taught for 2,000 years, then there is no reason to be concerned until someone like you comes along and tries to assert that it’s all symbolic. You tell me how you can believe what n-Cs have taught you with those three witnesses confirming the fact that they are dead wrong? What does the Word of God say newbie? “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.” (Matt 18:16, 2nd Cor 13:1)
N
newbie1234
Guest
Both those verses have to do with a sinning brother.
So you’re saying, that because three people said that the church doesn’t teach such and such , that means I"M LYING.
Please don’t assert that I am lying. I told you my experiences, What I was taught and what people in my family still believe.
I am a Christian, I am not in the habit of lying.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Not so…they are quotes of the OT that have to do with the testimony of anything as to fact. I would have thought you would have known that.
That is not at all what I am saying.
I said that there were three sources that prove that what you believe about a symbolic communion is not either scriptural or historical. The Bible, historic Christian writings of the ECF, and 2,000 years of consistent teaching of the Catholic church. Since all three disagree with what you believe that would mean that a faithful believer will consider the differing teachings as errors.
I did not. I said that I have encountered outright lies from anti-Catholics. You probably have been exposed to some of them and a result have been led astray and out of the Catholic faith.
And your Catholic Mom and relatives are right and you are dead wrong, as my Catholic friends and I have already shown you again and again.
Never said you were…
N
newbie1234
Guest
2cor13:1 is about witnesses testifying agaist a sinning brother.Not so…they are quotes of the OT that have to do with the testimony of anything as to fact. I would have thought you would have known that.That is not at all what I am saying.
I said that there were three sources that prove that what you believe about a symbolic communion is not either scriptural or historical. The Bible, historic Christian writings of the ECF, and 2,000 years of consistent teaching of the Catholic church. Since all three disagree with what you believe that would mean that a faithful believer will consider the differing teachings as errors.I did not. I said that I have encountered outright lies from anti-Catholics. You probably have been exposed to some of them and a result have been led astray and out of the Catholic faith.
And your Catholic Mom and relatives are right and you are dead wrong, as my Catholic friends and I have already shown you again and again.Never said you were…
Matt 18:16 is about a sinning brother. Three witnesses approach him and tell him his sin. Open your bible. Read it. Learn from it. Please. For the love of God. Read your bible.
I am shutting down for the night and will be going snowboarding for a few days so I might not be able to answer. So store up all your ammo and I will answer when I get back.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That may be the application in the New Testament in these passages, but go back and look at what they refer to in the OT. It has to do with any testimony given in a “court” about anything.
I did and do read my Bible…you are dead wrong and need to go see for yourself.
I thought you knew the Bible…I see now that I actually know it better than you do.
Better do your homework…
N
newbie1234
Guest
If you want me to look at OT, then tell me OT verses. MATT and COR are NT. The NT context is talking about a sinning brother.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
You should’ve known that…Even your Bible probably has a footnote citing the OT use.
T
Tomster
Guest
In opposing the Protestant claim that Scripture is the sole source of revelation I will say this. Tradition is the dynamic fulfillment of the Church’s obligation to preach the Gospel, the collective consciousness which the Church has of the deposit of faith. The handing on of the faith is done by continuous preaching of the magistery, by the belief of the Church, by the Holy Ghost speaking through the living Church. Tradition is the only means by which the primitive revelation could have been transmitted. Even when revelation began to be written down in the time of Moses, oral tradition continued. Indeed it is a doctrine faith that the Christian revelation is handed on by this means. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians: “Stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14) He warns the Galatians: “If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:9) The obligation which the Apostles received and fulfilled was to speak and to teach; that of the Church, to believe. The Councils of Trent and Vatican I assert that revelation came from the mouth of Christ to the Apostles and from them it was transmitted to us by the aid of the Holy Ghost. The instruments of this tradition are, primarily, the Apostles, popes, councils, and bishops; secondarily, those who, under the supervision of the former, preach, teach, write, or, like the whole body of the faithful, profess their faith.
The objective counterpart of that preaching and belief is the body of truths, received from the mouth of Jesus Christ or from the Apostles, illumined by the Holy Ghost, which have been handed on in the Church as the revelation of God. This is the deposit of faith or the objective criterion by which all doctrinal disputes are settled. For, according to the Second Council of Constantinople, our Christian Tradition is “the faith which was given from the beginning by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to the Holy Apostles and by them preached in the world; which the Holy Fathers have confessed and explained and handed on to the holy churches.” This is moreover the whole faith. True, Tradition is used in the narrow sense as referring only to the revelations which were not entrusted to the inspired writings, but, in the proper sense, Tradition includes the entire deposit of faith. Both in the Old and the New Law revelation was handed on orally before any of it was written down, and only some of the revelation was consigned to sacred books. Nowhere does Scripture say that it contains the entire divine message. But this was given to the Church. Her teachings, therefore, embrace Scripture because She alone knows what is inspired writing, and She alone knows the proper meaning of Scripture. Finally, if we may include in Tradition, as we surely ought, those nonrevealed truths which are necessary at times for the defense of revelation, then Tradition is the living thought of the Christian community nourished and guided by the Holy Ghost.
T
Tomster
Guest
newbie 1234,
Again, in opposing the Protestant claim that Scripture is the sole source of revelation, one should not give the impression that the Bible and Traditon are separate and independent of each other. There is an expression of Catholic thought which says that the Bible is God’s revelation, understanding of course that there are some dogmas which are not explicitly contained in Scripture but are closely derived from it. The Bible and Tradition would not then be two distinct though parallel sources of dogma, but two inseparable components of revelation, the body of which is the written word, and Tradition the soul. Revelation is fully evolved from the operation of the Holy Ghost upon Tradition and Scripture. The Holy Ghost acts upon the living Tradition until it crystallizes into Scripture. When revelation gets written down, the Holy Ghost interprets it and makes it live by Tradition. Hence, according to this expression, Tradition is the divinely guided and living interpretation of Scripture by the Church. This is her understanding of the divine revelation and that intelligence is always within her.
What constitutes a tradition the Church can learn by examining the organs of tradition. Foremost among these are the Fathers of the Church, the ecclesiastical writers of the first eight centuries who have been approved by the Church for their holiness and orthodox doctrine. God raised them up to be witnesses and teachers of the faith. The practically unanimous agreement of the Fathers, that a doctrine must be believed by the faithful, is a sure argument for its divinely revealed character. Another prominent organ is the theologians. If we have the morally unanimous testimony of the theologians that a doctrine is not only true but revealed, their agreement is a certain argument for its dogmatic status. Third, the sacred liturgy is to be considered; for the prayers of the Church are a norm of its beliefs. Another norm is the practice of the Church over a long period. Thus, if the Roman Pontiffs have dissolved certain types of marriges for centuries, one must believe that they have legitimate power to act in that way. Finally, we have the universal beliefs of the faithful. For the Holy Ghost dwells in the whole Church, not only assisting the magistery to teach, but also the faithful to believe. Hence it is impossible for the entire body of the faithful to believe what is false.
By examining all the organs of tradition the Church can (1) discover the truths living in the minds of the faithful; (2) judge the records of the past to determine if a writer substituted his personal opinion (Martin Luther!!!) for the true voice of Christendom; (3) declare a disputed tenet to be or not to be part of the faith; (4) reaffirm all past pronouncements. But even if all monuments of past teaching and witnessing to the faith were lost, the Church could still teach by looking within and consulting her living understanding of the doctrine entrusted to her.
Therefore, as there is one object of belief and that is the revelation of God, deposited in Scripture and Tradition, so there is one proximate rule of faith and that is the living voice of the Church Teaching.
Again, in opposing the Protestant claim that Scripture is the sole source of revelation, one should not give the impression that the Bible and Traditon are separate and independent of each other. There is an expression of Catholic thought which says that the Bible is God’s revelation, understanding of course that there are some dogmas which are not explicitly contained in Scripture but are closely derived from it. The Bible and Tradition would not then be two distinct though parallel sources of dogma, but two inseparable components of revelation, the body of which is the written word, and Tradition the soul. Revelation is fully evolved from the operation of the Holy Ghost upon Tradition and Scripture. The Holy Ghost acts upon the living Tradition until it crystallizes into Scripture. When revelation gets written down, the Holy Ghost interprets it and makes it live by Tradition. Hence, according to this expression, Tradition is the divinely guided and living interpretation of Scripture by the Church. This is her understanding of the divine revelation and that intelligence is always within her.
What constitutes a tradition the Church can learn by examining the organs of tradition. Foremost among these are the Fathers of the Church, the ecclesiastical writers of the first eight centuries who have been approved by the Church for their holiness and orthodox doctrine. God raised them up to be witnesses and teachers of the faith. The practically unanimous agreement of the Fathers, that a doctrine must be believed by the faithful, is a sure argument for its divinely revealed character. Another prominent organ is the theologians. If we have the morally unanimous testimony of the theologians that a doctrine is not only true but revealed, their agreement is a certain argument for its dogmatic status. Third, the sacred liturgy is to be considered; for the prayers of the Church are a norm of its beliefs. Another norm is the practice of the Church over a long period. Thus, if the Roman Pontiffs have dissolved certain types of marriges for centuries, one must believe that they have legitimate power to act in that way. Finally, we have the universal beliefs of the faithful. For the Holy Ghost dwells in the whole Church, not only assisting the magistery to teach, but also the faithful to believe. Hence it is impossible for the entire body of the faithful to believe what is false.
By examining all the organs of tradition the Church can (1) discover the truths living in the minds of the faithful; (2) judge the records of the past to determine if a writer substituted his personal opinion (Martin Luther!!!) for the true voice of Christendom; (3) declare a disputed tenet to be or not to be part of the faith; (4) reaffirm all past pronouncements. But even if all monuments of past teaching and witnessing to the faith were lost, the Church could still teach by looking within and consulting her living understanding of the doctrine entrusted to her.
Therefore, as there is one object of belief and that is the revelation of God, deposited in Scripture and Tradition, so there is one proximate rule of faith and that is the living voice of the Church Teaching.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Excellent NotWorthy! I seem to have forgotten that! http://bestsmileys.com/doh/1.gif Maybe it was because I was posting all night and wasn’t as sharp as i needed to be.
That is pretty conclusive scriptural evidence. I must be slipping.
That is pretty conclusive scriptural evidence. I must be slipping.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
But newbie, herein lies the problem. What if 3 brothers feel that something like abortion is legal. Many faiths believe that now. Do you take it to those brothers, knowing that three other brothers feel that abortion is illegal?
What you’ve just described is simply finding the right three witnesses for your belief. Contraception, go get three more witnesses. Embryonic stem cell research, no problem.
Where is the authority to resolve disputes without simply splitting up the congregation, which is what I’ve seen so much of around my town. For instance, I saw a Church of Christ congregation split in two simply over the issue of whether the Lord’s Supper grape juice should be distributed in one cup or more than one.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Sometimes, if you get too close to the trees, you can’t see the forest!!!Excellent NotWorthy! I seem to have forgotten that! http://bestsmileys.com/doh/1.gif Maybe it was because I was posting all night and wasn’t as sharp as i needed to be.
That is pretty conclusive scriptural evidence. I must be slipping.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
…stupid tree…Sometimes, if you get too close to the trees, you can’t see the forest!!!
N
newbie1234
Guest
Please quote chapter and verse .
Are either of these verses talking about Mary. The subject is about Mary Not Elizabeth.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The subject to my post was your statement:
- “That” you are referring to is in response to:
So I’m just showing that there is a foundation for that in the Bible.
You’ll find both of my quotes from Luke, Chapter 1.
But enough about this… How was your snowboarding? Are you still on both of your feet?
*
N
newbie1234
Guest
I’ll be here till friday. All good. Great conditions ThanksThe subject to my post was your statement:
* “That” you are referring to is in response to:
So I’m just showing that there is a foundation for that in the Bible.
You’ll find both of my quotes from Luke, Chapter 1.
But enough about this… How was your snowboarding? Are you still on both of your feet?
*
- Status