non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[climer97007]

I think this vision is talking about our brothers and sisters in Christ that fall away never to return. I know people who were once believers that now call the church a crutch for weak people. That the church weakened them and now they are stronger being away.

**He showed me that the black and gangrened side of the body would soon be cured; that the putrified flesh which had collected around the wounds represented heretics who divide one from the other in proportion as they increase; that the dead flesh was the figure of all who are spiritually dead, and who are void of any feeling; and that the ossified parts represented obstinate and hardened heretics. **

It is this part that really explains who the vision pertains to: “People who divide one from the other in proportion as they increase.” Jesus said that if we do not eat His flesh and Drink His blood, we do not have life in us. And here, He is talking about that one and same spiritual death. Your friend recons that he is stronger now, though, in spiritual terms, he may truly be weaker now then he ever was before. This is often the case with the people of the world. They recon strength and weakness as the world sees, not as God sees. Still, this was such an emotional image to me. I cried the first time I read it. I had never stopped to see the Body of Christ in these terms, from God’s perspective.

Gene

 

[ChristianRoots]

They had the OT and the oral teachings of the apostles which later came to be written down. There were already letters of Paul before 50 AD.

Most churches did not have copies of Paul’s letters during the 50s and 60s. They continued to rely on oral tradition.

When was oral tradition officially invalidated? I can’t find it anywhere in the Bible.

Was it immediataley following the death of the Apostle John? If so, do you then assume all churches had all the current books of the New Testament at that time?

If they didn’t possess all the current books of the New Testament immediatley following the death of the Apostle John, then would you admit that all books were not necessary for the faith or would you admit that these numerous churches were deficient because they lacked the other books or would you admit these churches were not deficient in the sense that they continued to rely on any Scripture they possesed plus Apostolic tradition?

 

[Deacon110]

**He showed me that the black and gangrened side of the body would soon be cured; that the putrified flesh which had collected around the wounds represented heretics who divide one from the other in proportion as they increase; that the dead flesh was the figure of all who are spiritually dead, and who are void of any feeling; and that the ossified parts represented obstinate and hardened heretics. **

It is this part that really explains who the vision pertains to: “People who divide one from the other in proportion as they increase.” Jesus said that if we do not eat His flesh and Drink His blood, we do not have life in us. And here, He is talking about that one and same spiritual death. Your friend recons that he is stronger now, though, in spiritual terms, he may truly be weaker now then he ever was before. This is often the case with the people of the world. They recon strength and weakness as the world sees, not as God sees. Still, this was such an emotional image to me. I cried the first time I read it. I had never stopped to see the Body of Christ in these terms, from God’s perspective.

Gene

I share your sentiments. I was spiritually dead for years. Being back in church and dedicating my life to Christ has re-awakened me. The Eucharist is something I can no longer live without.

I think my friend is caught up in the strength of this world as you so rightly put it. Money, sexual immorality all of it. I know, I’ve been there and back

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

Most churches did not have copies of Paul’s letters during the 50s and 60s. They continued to rely on oral tradition.

Don’t mean to barge in. But this is not entirely true. Mark’s Gospel was in wide circulation. The earliest manuscript we have is a parchment from Mark which has been dated to 42AD. This was a copy which means the originals had to precede this. Most experts conclude the original to be dated by the late 30sAD so just shortly after the death of Christ. By 40AD just 7 years after the death of Christ it was being circulated. Many of Paul’s letters precede the Gospels and were in widespread circulation before 50AD, much earlier than previously thought. They were carried from town to town by soldiers, merchants etc.

When was oral tradition officially invalidated? I can’t find it anywhere in the Bible.

I don’t think oral tradition was ever invalidated. But the Gospels and the rest of the Canon were vital to the early church. The church Fathers compiled the Canon in the 300sAD and the official Canon was completed shortly thereafter. They used the books and letters of the NT to combat the teachings of the Christian denominations like Montanism, Marcionism etc. that were spreading quickly and winning over followers from the true church of Christ. Marcion himself re-wrote portions of Luke and Paul’s letters to fit his brand of Christianity. Stating that Christ was a phantom and that the GOD of the OT was the Demiurge. The early church fathers used the Canon so they could distinguish exactly what the Apostles taught vs. what Marcion was claiming.

So even though oral teaching is great, there is no substitute like the Bible for validation. Even the early church fathers would agree with this as this is what slowed the spread of Marcionism.

Was it immediataley following the death of the Apostle John? If so, do you then assume all churches had all the current books of the New Testament at that time?

Certainly the first 3 were in widespread circulation way before the death of John. John’s Gospel was in question for a long time as being authentic because it did not contain the details of the last supper. At least the part of this is my body and blood. He skips over that for some reason. But Irenaeus validated it using the testimony of Polycarp who as you know was a disciple of John’s. This is how Irenaeus finally arrived at which 4 were going to be used which is the 4 Gospels as we know them today. They were the most popular and most accepted amongst early Christians. Originally only 1, maybe 2 max were going to be accepted until Irenaeus demanded that there be 4, representing the 4 points of the compass N, S, E, W.

If they didn’t possess all the current books of the New Testament immediatley following the death of the Apostle John, then would you admit that all books were not necessary for the faith or would you admit that these numerous churches were deficient because they lacked the other books or would you admit these churches were not deficient in the sense that they continued to rely on any Scripture they possesed plus Apostolic tradition?

I agree no books were necessary for Faith as we see at Pentecost. But it didn’t take long for churches to deviate from their Faith like those of Corinth and Galatia which prompted Paul’s epistles to each. It also didn’t take long for the Jews to invade the Christian churches demanding that Gentiles hold to Jewish practices like circuncision. This in turn prompted probably the first council meeting at Jerusalem and the dispatch of probably the first letter to the churches in reference to this very issue. So while oral teaching is important scripture is vital to back it up. It’s the only way we really would ever be able to identify a false prophet. 2 Timothy 3 16-17 pretty much sums it up.

Sorry again to barge in

PEACE

 

[guanophore]

Do the Scriptures derive their inspiration and inerrancy from the Traditions?

No. Both derive their inspiration and inerrancy from God, their Source.

The scriptures do teach i.e. state– in Romans 8:39 that “…will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” What Paul is specifcally refering to here is not a separation from each other ( we are separated either by death or geography) but nothing shall be able to “separate us from the love of Christ”. This distinction is crucial to keep in mind.

No, scripture does not teach. People teach. I agree that this passage is talking about nothing being able to separate us from the love of God (including death). So if we are all members one of another, and we are all in unity with Christ, then we are not separated from one another, either, by death.

Secondly, there is nothing in this passage about communication between the departed in Christ (who are not separated from the love of Christ) and we who are alive here in this world. These 2 parties are separated from each other.

We are only separated by the veil of flesh, the tangible world. In the physical realm, we are One Body, with One Lord. Nothing can separate us from His love, including death. Nothing can separate us from one another, including death. Why do you not wish to be joined to those who have gone before you in the faith? Are you ashamed to be part of them?

Revelation is one of the most difficult books to understand in Scripture. I think it does in part refer to future events before the return of Christ. I somethimes think that these kinds of events could happen quite rapidly.

But you did not answer my question. When will the saints be praying before the throne of God? If this has not happened yet, when will it?

In regards to when the saints in heaven will be able to pray i really don’t know. The whole book certainly gives the impression that something is going on beyond this world and those in heaven have some awareness of the ramifications of the seals being broken as having some serious signiifcance for those on earth.

Well, it is good that you have not thrown out the whole idea of saints in heaven.

What do you think?

That is irrelevant, really. What the Church teaches is what we have from the Apostles, and that is recorded in the Apostles Creed as the Communion of Saints. The Apostolic teaching is that we are not separated from one another by death.

 

[Lampo]

I agree that there is one truth. That truth is Jesus. We all agree on that. As far as being one truth on all doctrine, that can also be true if everyone sees the interpretation of scripture the same way. If not then how do you resolve it?

By taking it to the pillar and bullwark of truth - the Church (1 Tim.3:15)

 

[Lampo]

That just doesn’t seem like Jesus and is not consistent at all with John 3:16.

John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

If we are cherrypicking verses and taking them out of context, then all I have to do according to John 3:16 is believe in Jesus Christ to have eternal life. I don’t even have to love him. Satan believes in Jesus Christ. How does this apply to him?

 

[Lampo]

Only the Scriptures are sufficent to base doctrines and practices and not traditions.

How was this done prior to 382AD when the Canon of Scripture as we have it today did not exist? Prior to 382AD, were doctrines and practices based only on the Old Testament? If so, which Canon? The Palestinian Canon or the Alexandrian (Septuagint), which I might add was used by Jesus and included the Deuterocanonicals?

 

[NDfan]

John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”

If we are cherrypicking verses and taking them out of context, then all I have to do according to John 3:16 is believe in Jesus Christ to have eternal life. I don’t even have to love him. Satan believes in Jesus Christ. How does this apply to him?

This argument gets thrown out so much. Satan doesn’t believe in Jesus. He ackowledges who Jesus is but there’s a big difference between believing and accepting Jesus and just merely acknowledging. Even the demons acknowledge who Jesus is but that doesn’t mean they believe.

 

[Lampo]

He ackowledges who Jesus is but there’s a big difference between believing and accepting Jesus and just merely acknowledging. Even the demons acknowledge who Jesus is but that doesn’t mean they believe.

Where in that passage does it give the definition of “believe?” It doesn’t. You are adding you personal, fallible interpretation.

 

[Lampo]

This argument gets thrown out so much.

That’s because it is logical.

 

[reteeks21]

Where in that passage does it give the definition of “believe?” It doesn’t. You are adding you personal, fallible interpretation.

How come only Protestants and their beliefs are considered fallible? Can the Chruch’s not ever be?

 

[Lampo]

How come only Protestants and their beliefs are considered fallible?

Because they are not in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

Can the Chruch’s not ever be?

Could you clarify this question for me? I’m a little dense this morning.

 

[reteeks21]

Because they are not in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

I do not disagree with Matthew 28, but who is to assume that He meant that your Church was the one He was referring to? What if He was referring to the body of believers and not an institution? Is it safe to say you feel Protestants are not Christians, or they are but they will barely make it to Heaven?

Could you clarify this question for me? I’m a little dense this morning.

How come your Church is fallible? Have they not ever been wrong? Example: the Inquistition

 

[Lampo]

How come your Church is fallible? Have they not ever been wrong? Example: the Inquistition

Thanks, I think I understand your question now. The Church has definitely been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future on some things. Examples: aspects of the Inquisitions, Priest abuse scandal, selling indulgences, etc. Those things do not fall under Papal Infallibility.

Infallibility does not mean a pope is incapable of sin. Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher. Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope.

When Jesus told Peter “whatever you bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19), He was promising to protect Peter from teaching error to the universal Church. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise to Peter. Because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), Peter must be protected from teaching error, since what he binds or looses, heaven binds and looses as well. Indeed, God intrudes into the mind of the pope and prevents him from teaching error, just like the Father penetrated the mind of Peter when he confessed that Jesus was the Christ.

Jesus said Peter is the rock upon which He would build the Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The basis for infallibility is the ability of the pope to accept and confess God’s divine guidance without error. It has nothing to do with the pope’s private opinions or conduct. The fact that all the popes have spoken with one voice over the past 2,000 years when it comes to dogmatizing principles of Catholic faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.

Note also that nothing the Church teaches on faith or morals just “pops up.” This is because the Church’s teaching comes from the Tradition of the apostles, which we call the sacred deposit of faith. The Church may try to clarifying the way she expresses doctrine, but there can be nothing new under the sun, as they say. Often, the Church will issue a dogmatic teaching to clarify a point of contention or refute a heresy. But clarifying the way in which she expresses the divine deposit of faith does not mean she makes up new doctrines. The doctrines remain the same.

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. – CCC #891

I sincerely hope that helps you understand what we as Catholics believe.

 

[CentralFLJames]

How come your Church is fallible? Have they not ever been wrong? Example: the Inquistition

Which inquisition are you referring to?

The Spanish Inquisition operated completely under royal authority, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II called for an “Inquisition Symposium”, and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. What they found discounted many exaggerated facts previously believed. It was learned that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and 4 in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women; 50,000 of them were burned, 25,000 in Germany, during the 16th century by the followers of Martin Luther.

James

 

[NDfan]

Where in that passage does it give the definition of “believe?” It doesn’t. You are adding you personal, fallible interpretation.

Stop being ridiculous. You know very well what I mean by believing. Acknowledging who Jesus is takes a much different meaning then when you say you believe IN HIM. Satan doesn’t believe in Jesus. If he did he wouldn’t be satan.

 

[NDfan]

That’s because it is logical.

You mean illogical. Believing IN Jesus does not mean that you will oppose Jesus. Satan and all demons oppose Jesus because they acknowledge who HE is but know they can’t stand up to HIM. That’s why they asked to be put in a bunch of pigs.

 

[reteeks21]

Which inquisition are you referring to?

The Spanish Inquisition operated completely under royal authority, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See.

In the year 2000, Pope John Paul II called for an “Inquisition Symposium”, and opened the Vatican to 30 external historians. What they found discounted many exaggerated facts previously believed. It was learned that more women accused of witchcraft died in the Protestant countries than under the Inquisition. For example, the Inquisition burned 59 women in Spain, 36 in Italy and 4 in Portugal, while in Europe civil justice put to trial close to 100,000 women; 50,000 of them were burned, 25,000 in Germany, during the 16th century by the followers of Martin Luther.

James

I don’t recall ever saying Luther was perfect like you believe the Pope is. And their was more than one Inquisition. Particularly the one ordered by the Vatican during the Reformation. Can you at least admit that the Catholic Church does get some things wrong? See, it is not just Protestants who cause problems. Some of it may have to do with the attitude of some Catholics.

 

[Lampo]

Stop being ridiculous.

Sorry you think I’m ridiculous.

You know very well what I mean by believing.

You are right, I do know very well what you mean. I also know that you are adding your personal, fallible interpretation to that passage by defining “believe” to satisfy your understanding. I believe the correct theological term in use here is iesegesis.

Acknowledging who Jesus is takes a much different meaning then when you say you believe IN HIM. Satan doesn’t believe in Jesus. If he did he wouldn’t be satan.

This is what I mean by eisegesis.