Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[adf417]

**I don’t really know for sure what Matt 16:18 means, and it’s highly debated what it means. **I do, however, know what Eph 2:20 means… It’s not “ambiguous”, but Matt 16:18 is - at it’s best - highly ambiguous…

OK, thats my take on it…

Does anyone know when this debate started?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Ummm… wait a minute… Meeting on Sunday was “common knowledge”? Started by the practice of the apostles???

I’m sorry, but the apostles were JEWS.

Acts 2:46 - “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house…” (They continued to meet daily in the temple)

Acts 5:25 - “Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.” (Peter and John were teaching in the temple)

Acts 10:14 - “But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” (this happened about 10 years after the Resurrection - and Peter was still holding to the Jewish Law of not eating “unclean foods”)

Acts 13:42-44 - "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. (Paul and Barnabas - YEARS after the Resurrection - were still meeting with other Jews on the Sabbath)

Acts 18:19-21 - "And he [Paul] came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; 21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. (here, we see Paul in the Synagogue, and he tells the others that he must “keep this feast that comes in Jerusalem” - in other words, Paul is still observing the Jewish Feasts, like The Passover)

Acts 5:5-6 and 19-21 - (5-6) “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” (19-21) "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (here, we see the Christians in Jerusalem considering what to write to the Gentile believers, deciding that “we trouble them not” will full compliance to Jewish Law, which the “Jewish Christians” still continued with)

I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that Christians - who, for a time, were all Jews that believed in Christ - kept with their Jewish practices and worship, centered at the temple and in the synagogues. This eventually changed, once the persecution began. But, the apostles were Jews, and for them, the Sabbath was from Friday evening until Saturday evening.

Now, I’m not saying that we need to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did… (although, hey, maybe we should… shrug…) But, what I’m saying is this: The idea of meeting on Sundays is simply NOT to be found in scripture, and certainly NOT presented as any kind of “tradition” of the apostles. Generally, tradition holds that Christians (ie, the Jewish ones) began at some point to meet on Sunday mornings… Maybe so… (although, it should be noted that Sunday mornng was a “work day” in the Jewish culture). So, maybe some of them had breakfast together or something. I dunno…

I think it’s just a “long shot” to say that Sunday was considered “the Lords Day” by the apostles… Especially when you consider that for the Jews, a day BEGINS at sundown… I mean, that would imply that “the Lords Day” REALLY began on Saturday evening - but, you don’t find THAT in ANY tradition. I suspect strongly that the Sunday morning meetings (when they finally began) were just a time for some fellowship, very informal. It was probably the Gentile believers who eventually turned Sunday into “the Lords Day”. I doubt that the apostles had anything at all to do with it…

Well, yes, the apostles were Jews, but what does that have to do with it. Indeed, they continued to meet in the temple, since they were Jews. What else would you expect them to do? The apostles would go to the temple on the sabbath to try to convince the Jews there that Jesus was the messiah. A natural thing to do, since you could talk to the Jews together on the Sabbath. But on Sunday the Christians did have breakfast together or something. They would meet together for the breaking of bread in their homes. Notice they broke bread in their homes, not the temple. Tradition helps here too in understanding what ‘breaking of bread’ means. It means the Eucharist. They together celebrated the Eucharist in their homes after the temple. You are right, these Sunday morning meetings were indeed a time for Christian fellowship, with glad and generous hearts, praising God, and devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and to [some] fellowship. Sure, the breaking of break (Eucharist) was informal at first, but became more formalized as time went on.

Paul and Peter continued Jewish practices, because, after all, they were Jews. Did gentile converts have to follow these practices? No, It was decided that gentiles in general did not have too.

Yes, for the apostles, the Sabbath was from Friday evening to Saturday evening, but the eighth day, Sunday, was the Lord’s Day. That is my opinion, and that of tradition. The gentiles of course didn’t celebrate the Sabbath, so the gentile Christians only continued to celebrate the Lord’s Day.

Again, this is my opinion. I can’t prove it but consider it the most probable. If one holds to scripture alone, well, how do we reconstruct how things happen? I don’t hold to scripture alone, because I feel that tradition fills in a lot of gaps scripture is silent upon, because the scripture writer simply assumes you already know.

 

[guanophore]

No where in scripture is she considered sinless and I gave clear texts showing she like the rest of us were sinners and needed a Savior. Citing early church fathers means nothing if they too contradict scripture.

That is just the point, though Phineas. The Reformers were all Sola Scriptura, and yet, they all embraced the doctrines of Mary that come from the Apostles. If they believed these Sacred Traditions were contrary to Scripture, surely they would have mentioned it! They didn’t have any problem refuting other ideas they believed were contradictory.

no one has yet answered me on why Jesus considered John the Baptist greater than she. I would appreciate someone explaining John's preeminence.

I did not respond to this because I thought it was a simple case of you misunderstanding Scripture.

Matt 11:11

11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Mary is the first Christian, she is the crown of His creation. She is the Queen Mother, and the Mother of the Church. Her role, therefore, is even greater than that of the Baptist, though is the greatest among those born of women. All those who are in the Kingdom are born both of earth, and of Heaven, by water and Spirit. You and I are greater than John, because of the Baptism of Christ.

Really, so the other 9 commandments are now no longer binding as well? Please read Matt 5:17-19 . So if the ten commandments are no longer binding and sin is the transgression of the law, than sin is no longer possible?

No, all the commandments are there to govern our conduct, and to lead us to the Spirit.

Jesus is our Sabbath rest, and we are to rest in Him every day of the week.

Col 2:14- 18 is clearly talking about the “handwriting of ordinances” which was the ceremonial law written by Moses; It was about the special feast day sabbaths and the food and drink offered on such days. The commandments of God written by Him on stone were never a shadow of anything. They are sure and stand fast forever Psm 111:7-8 and Matt 5:17-19

One must distinguish between the ceremonial law given to the Israelites, and the moral Law that applies to all human beings. The ceremonial laws were a shadow and a figure.

, Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28) Show me a scripture that says Sunday was the Lord’s day

I don’t think we should turn this into a Sabbath thread. We should take this to another already open thread or start a new one.

Yes. He is lord of the Sabbath. And, if He wished He could have resurrected on the Sabbath, but He did not. He chose to rise early in the morning on the first day of the week. And thus, we celebrate Him on that day.

You can worship Him any day of the week you like, but the 7th day is the day He blessed and hallowed and no other, and we are told by God to honor and worship Him on that day. That is His law so don’t be so presumptuous as to try and rationalize it away to fit a man-made tradition

Calm down, Phineas. This is not a Sabbath thread, and we don’t need to rationalize that Jesus IS our Sabbath. This topic seems to upset you a lot. Try not to derail the thread.

. The first commandment in the catholic catechism says"I am the LORD your God:you shall not have strange Gods before me. But I see nothing about warning of making an idol and worshiping it. In , just go to google images and type in "worshiping Mary’ and you will see Catholics bowing down before a statue of Mary. That is what happen when you start editing God’s commandments. Now it may be in other catechisms but why the discrepancies

Clearly you misunderstand the Catholic faith, Phineas. I wonder if you would consider learning what we really believe, rather than relying on google?

i am looking at your Catholic catechism of the ten commandments and the second commandment as stated in all the Bibles I know, including the catholic Douay-Rheims Bible is omitted. in the catechism statement of the ten commandments. And Speaking of redundancy, what could be more so than the Catholic version of dividing covetousness into two separate commandments.

You seem to have a number of criticisms against the Catholic Church. Perhaps you will consider taking one of them at a time. One of the forum rules is that we have to stay on topic. If you are so hostile toward Catholicism that you are unable to follow the forum rules, you will not be posting here for long.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work."

Amen! He is our rest. In Him, we do not work our way into heaven, but are saved by grace, through faith.

Heb 4:9-12
9 So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; 10 for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his.

11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.
Phineas;9390855:

Why the differences between catechisms , I do not know,..

Are you interested in finding out, or just here to throw hand grenades at our faith? You can learn a lot more about what the Catholic Church teaches here than you can by google.

 

[Pheonix]

No where in scripture is she considered sinless and I gave clear texts showing she like the rest of us were sinners and needed a Savior.

1. And, as I have shown, there are no scriptural instances where it states that Mary was considered sinful. I even gave clear texts showing that she was indeed saved from sin.
2. Really? You have shown us "CLEAR" texts? If your text-proofs are so clear, then why did the Early Church Fathers and the original Reformers reach a different conclusion than you?
3. I have already shown you two things: 1) your “all have sinned” text-proof does not prove Mary was a sinner. If “all” literally means “all,” then logic dictates that Jesus must have been a sinner too. 2) “Mary needed a Savior, therefore she was a sinner” is faulty logic, and I gave a clear explanation as to why this argument doesn’t work. Why do you keep ignoring these arguments instead of actually trying to refute them?

Citing early church fathers means nothing if they too contradict scripture.

Except the Early Church Fathers do not contradict Scripture when they say that Mary was indeed sinless. The Early Church Fathers contradict your personal interpretations of Scripture.

I mean, the Early Church Fathers read the exact same Scriptures as we do. Therefore, they too encountered your text-proofs of “all have sinned” and “all [are] under sin.” If these verses were really a problem for the Immaculate Conception, then did these great biblical scholars teach that she was indeed sinless?

This is likewise the case with the original Reformers. They were the original proponents of Sola Scriptura, and as such they rejected any and all teachings and traditions that they found contradicted Scripture. The Reformers, however, did in fact believe Mary was saved from sin through God’s divine intervention. If your text-proofs of “all have sinned” and “all [are] under sin” really proved that Mary was a sinner, then why did the Reformers teach that she was sinless? From those facts, we can logically reason that Mary being saved from sin does not contradict Scripture. If it did, then why didn’t the Reformers reject the teaching?

no one has yet answered me on why Jesus considered John the Baptist greater than she. I would appreciate someone explaining John’s preeminence.

And you have yet answered my arguments concerning Genesis 3:15, Luke1:28, and the analogy that shows that “Mary needed a Savior, therefore she was a sinner” is faulty logic, not to mention a poor argument.

Further, no one has answered your “John the Baptist was greater than Mary” argument because it is not pertinent to the discussion. John the Baptist supposedly being greater than Mary does not disprove her being sinless.

Really, so the other 9 commandments are now no longer binding as well? Please read Matt 5:17-19 . So if the ten commandments are no longer binding and sin is the transgression of the law, than sin is no longer possible?

Worship on Saturday was a ceremonial law of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was fulfilled by the New Covenant. Therefore, we are no longer bound to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. If you say that we have to follow a ceremonial law of the Old Covenant (i.e. worship on Saturday), then you must also agree that we have to follow all of the other ceremonial laws.

Col 2:14- 18 is clearly talking about the “handwriting of ordinances” which was the ceremonial law written by Moses; It was about the special feast day sabbaths and the food and drink offered on such days. The commandments of God written by Him on stone were never a shadow of anything. They are sure and stand fast forever Psm 111:7-8 and Matt 5:17-19

Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. (Colossians 2:14-16)

As these verses sixteen clearly states, the Sabbath was indeed a “shadow of things to come.” This means it was fulfilled by Christ, and that we are no longer bound to worship on Sunday.

Jesus said he was Lord of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:27-28) Show me a scripture that says Sunday was the Lord’s day

Conversely, show me a single piece of Scripture that says Saturday is the Lord’s Day. You won’t find that either.

We believe Sunday is the Lord’s Day because Christ rose on Sunday. Further, the Early Church Fathers make a distinction between Saturday and Sunday; they call Sunday the “Lord’s Day,” as well as reveal to us that even the Jews believed Sunday to be the Lord’s Day.

You can worship Him any day of the week you like, but the 7th day is the day He blessed and hallowed and no other, and we are told by God to honor and worship Him on that day. That is His law so don’t be so presumptuous as to try and rationalize it away to fit a man-made tradition

We are told to worship and honor God on Saturday as part of the Old Covenant Law. The Old Covenant Law is no longer in effect. Therefore, we are no longer bound to the Old Covenant Law.

Further, as I mentioned before, the Early Church Fathers make it blatantly clear that Sunday is the new day of Christian worship. The Didache even states that the Apostles themselves commanded the Church to worship on Sunday, instead of Saturday.

The first commandment in the catholic catechism says"I am the LORD your God:you shall not have strange Gods before me. But I see nothing about warning of making an idol and worshiping it.

Why does it have too? Why is “thou shalt not have strange god before me” not a warning about worshiping idols? After all, idols ARE indeed strange gods. Here’s a shortened version of the First Commandment: thou shalt not commit idolatry. This indeed does encompass Exodus 20:2-5. As I said, if you worship something other than God, you’re committing idolatry. Likewise, if your worshiping idol instead of God, you’re committing idolatry.

Exodus 20:2-5 are dealing with the exact same thing: idolatry. Therefore, the Catholic Church combined Exodus 20:2-5 into one commandment.

You have to yet to provide evidence as to why Exodus 20:4 is THE Second Commandment, by the way.

In , just go to google images and type in "worshiping Mary’ and you will see Catholics bowing down before a statue of Mary.

First of all, bowing down to something does not automatically mean you’re worshiping that something. People bow to each other in Japan to greet each other, so does that mean that they are worshiping the people they are greeting?

Second of all, I can easily go on Google Images and find an image of Protestants like yourself bowing down to something other than God or Christ. Where’s your argument now? Why are you suddenly implying that whatever is on Google is 100 percent truth?

Third of all, the Catholic Church does not worship Mary. We honor her, as she is completely deserving of our honor.

That is what happen when you start editing God’s commandments. Now it may be in other catechisms but why the discrepancies

By logic of this argument, all versions of the Ten Commandments can be accused of being a blatant attempt to “edit God’s commandments.” After all, Exodus 20 does not list any of God’s statements as “THE First Commandment” or “THE Ninth Commandment.”

Further, unless you provide evidence as to why Exodus 20:4 is THE Second Commandment, you’re making a fallacious, unsubstantiated argument.

i am looking at your Catholic catechism of the ten commandments and the second commandment as stated in all the Bibles I know, including the catholic Douay-Rheims Bible is omitted.

Because Exodus 20:4 is not the Second Commandment; it’s part of the First Commandment. Why don’t you provide evidence that Exodus 20:4 is, in fact, THE Second Commandment instead of side-stepping my arguments?

 

[aussie_stockman]

Does anyone know when this debate started?

I SUSPECT that the debate started VERY early…

Here, Peter himself seems to be addressing the “debate” (1 Peter, 2:4-8):

And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is *choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, [j]are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in [k]Scripture:

“ Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone,
And he who believes in [l]Him will not be [m]disappointed.”

7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,

“ The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the very corner stone,”

8 and,

“ A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;

And here, Paul seems to be addressing the “debate” (read 1 Corith, chpt 3):

Paul begins - 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

he continues to talk of this topic through the chapter, then ends with this:

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

Again - I repeat myself reduntantly again — I only SUSPECT that the “debate” may have started very early… But in the above passages, it seems like Peter is trying to make it clear that Jesus is - at least - the “main rock”… And Paul seems to be saying “forget about who you think is the ‘leader’ - Paul, Apollos, Cephas… this is unimportant… we all belong to Christ”…

shrug… just a few thoughts on the topic… I’m not trying to “prove” one thing or another, just saying that maybe this debate has gone on since about the time that Jesus first uttered the words “…you are Kephas, and upon this… (rock? kepha? petra? boulder? whatever…) I will build my church.”*

 

[guanophore]

Ummm… wait a minute… Meeting on Sunday was “common knowledge”? Started by the practice of the apostles???

I’m sorry, but the apostles were JEWS.

Yes, and that is precisely why they met on the Lord’s Day (Sunday=the first day of the week) for Eucharist. They could not do this in a Jewish setting.

Acts 2:46 - “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house…” (They continued to meet daily in the temple)

Acts 5:25 - “Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.” (Peter and John were teaching in the temple)

Acts 10:14 - “But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” (this happened about 10 years after the Resurrection - and Peter was still holding to the Jewish Law of not eating “unclean foods”)

This activity in the temple lasted only until all Christians were ejected.

Acts 13:42-44 - "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. (Paul and Barnabas - YEARS after the Resurrection - were still meeting with other Jews on the Sabbath)

Yes, of course! That is where they always went to preach first. But you notice, it was not until the Jews left and they had the Gentiles alone that theycould preach and teach about Jesus. Those Jews that did not accept the Messiah eventually ejected the Christians from the synagogues all together.

Acts 18:19-21 - "And he [Paul] came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; 21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. (here, we see Paul in the Synagogue, and he tells the others that he must “keep this feast that comes in Jerusalem” - in other words, Paul is still observing the Jewish Feasts, like The Passover)

No one here is claiming that the Apostles were not faithful Jews, or that they did not observe the Sabbath. They observed Sabbath and the Lord’s Day (Sunday). The Gentiles were not compelled to keep the Sabbath.

Acts 5:5-6 and 19-21 - (5-6) "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.  6  And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter."  (19-21) "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:  20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (here, we see the Christians in Jerusalem considering what to write to the Gentile believers, deciding that “we trouble them not” will full compliance to Jewish Law, which the “Jewish Christians” still continued with)

This is actually more of a testimony to the fact that Gentiles were not bound by the Sabbath laws.

I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that Christians - who, for a time, were all Jews that believed in Christ - kept with their Jewish practices and worship, centered at the temple and in the synagogues.   This eventually changed, once the persecution began.   But, the apostles were Jews, and for them, the Sabbath was from Friday evening until Saturday evening.

No arguement there, but Scripture also testifies that they observed the Lord’s Day.

Now, I’m not saying that we need to observe the Sabbath as the Jews did… (although, hey, maybe we should… shrug…) But, what I’m saying is this: The idea of meeting on Sundays is simply NOT to be found in scripture, and certainly NOT presented as any kind of “tradition” of the apostles.

Well, we read it diferently, don’t we?

Generally, tradition holds that Christians (ie, the Jewish ones) began at some point to meet on Sunday mornings… Maybe so… (although, it should be noted that Sunday mornng was a “work day” in the Jewish culture). So, maybe some of them had breakfast together or something. I dunno…

They met for prayer and Eucharist, and after the Gospels were written and the letters, to read and reflect on the Christian Scriptures which they could not do in the synagogue.

 I think it's just a "long shot" to say that Sunday was considered "the Lords Day" by the apostles...   Especially when you consider that for the Jews, a day BEGINS at sundown...   I mean, that would imply that "the Lords Day" REALLY began on Saturday evening - but, you don't find THAT in ANY tradition.

Actually, this is found in all the Churches founded by Aposltes. There are vigils and evening Mass on Saturday, that is counted as a Sunday observance.

The Eastern Christians have always calculated this way, because that is what they received from the Apostles.

I suspect strongly that the Sunday morning meetings (when they finally began) were just a time for some fellowship, very informal.   It was probably the Gentile believers who eventually turned Sunday into "the Lords Day".  I doubt that the apostles had anything at all to do with it...

Except that history testifies otherwise. Sunday Divine Liturgy has continued from the first century till today.

 

[aussie_stockman]

guanophore —

I see all your responses to my comments, but I don’t see you offering any documentation to support your claims…

For all I know, you simply might be “parroting” what you’ve heard from others - especially in regard to “the Lords Day”… I mean, the term “the Lords Day” is used VERY ambiguously in scripture…

Personally, I don’t have any problem at all with the church meeting on Sundays. And, I’m sure that that was the routine by the second century (100ad-199ad)… That’s all OK with me…

But the original claim was that the apostles STARTED the practice, and I just have my doubts about that. If they did, then thats fine with me. I don’t care, really…

But - show me some documentation… and NOT just a bunch of writings by “church fathers”, written way after the time of the apostles. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the “church fathers”, as they are considered by the Catholic Church, are CATHOLIC CHURCH FATHERS. There were a whole BUNCH of Eastern (Orthodox) Church Fathers that didn’t go along with what the Catholic Church fathers said… (regarding the Papacy, the celebration of Easter, etc, etc)…

So, show me something from scripture that clearly supports the notion that the apostles STARTED the practice of meeting on Sundays. Or - at least - show me something by Polycarp, or one of the other “understudies” of the apostles, that says the apostles started the practice…

 

[mackbrislawn]

guanophore —

I see all your responses to my comments, but I don’t see you offering any documentation to support your claims…

For all I know, you simply might be “parroting” what you’ve heard from others - especially in regard to “the Lords Day”… I mean, the term “the Lords Day” is used VERY ambiguously in scripture…

Personally, I don’t have any problem at all with the church meeting on Sundays. And, I’m sure that that was the routine by the second century (100ad-199ad)… That’s all OK with me…

But the original claim was that the apostles STARTED the practice, and I just have my doubts about that. If they did, then thats fine with me. I don’t care, really…

But - show me some documentation… and NOT just a bunch of writings by “church fathers”, written way after the time of the apostles. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the “church fathers”, as they are considered by the Catholic Church, are CATHOLIC CHURCH FATHERS. There were a whole BUNCH of Eastern (Orthodox) Church Fathers that didn’t go along with what the Catholic Church fathers said… (regarding the Papacy, the celebration of Easter, etc, etc)…

So, show me something from scripture that clearly supports the notion that the apostles STARTED the practice of meeting on Sundays. Or - at least - show me something by Polycarp, or one of the other “understudies” of the apostles, that says the apostles started the practice…

Yes, the term Lord’s Day is used very ambiguously in scripture. That is because you have to be one of the learned to understand. The ones to whom scripture was written understood very well what it meant–Sunday. Scripture was written to the learned, not the unlearned. To the unlearned, they are outside and cannot understand. There are also the unstable, who have itchy ears and enjoy winds of new doctrine.

Scripture is not clear to the unlearned, so the scripture passages that show Sunday in apostolic times will not be clear to them, and will be rejected. Such as Acts 20:7. It shows clearly to the learned that they were celebrating the Eucharist on the first day of the week. Of course for the unstable who have succumbed to outside teachers, they won’t be open to the truth.

We can pray for them, but ultimately it takes the Holy Spirit.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Jose, great post.

Although I’m a little puzzled by your first questions. Like why Jesus quoted extensively from scripture? Well why not quote from scripture? Is there a reason he shouldn’t? Of course scripture is valuable to quote from, no one denies that. But Jesus did introduce his own teachings, when he said things like, “The Law says this, but I say that…”

The same with St Peter; he is trying to convince a Jewish crowd. So, he quotes from what they all accept. The Pharisees did accept the tradition of a resurrection, but the Sadducees didn’t. The future ressurrection at that time was largely a still a tradition, even though it is mentioned in Maccabees.

What Traditions are interpreted on the same level as Scripture? Well, infant baptism. The meaning of baptism. Worship on Sunday. That Jesus died on a cross. And, most importantly, what is Scripture and how to interpret it.

An example of a tradition established by the apostles was that Jesus was God. We know this was a tradition is because Ignatius mentions Jesus as God as early as 110 AD. This was too early for scriptural exegesis to determine that truth. Therefore, it was a teaching taught orally to the early Christians, which was later ratified at Nicea. They didn’t have to wait around for scripture to be written and later gathered together and exegeted to know this.

Where is there a book of Tradition as the oral Word of God to be interpreted the same as Scripture? Of course there isn’t such a thing because by definition Tradition is unwritten. However, some traditions do get written down and dogmatized eventually. Some get written down and some are never written down, but just done. You do it, but then someone comes along and challenges why you are doing it. You stutter and say, because that’s the way it has always been done, a tradition. Now, it is easy to say it is a tradition, but harder to prove when it started, if reference to it has never happened to be written down. The apostles did it! Well, how do you prove to someone who doesn’t want to believe that the apostles did it if it hasn’t been written down?

A case in point is baptism by pouring or sprinkling. Catholics defended the practice by saying it came from the early apostolic church, but had no written proof that the early church did it. Until the Didache was discovered, and it definitely gave proof that the early church did allow sprinkling or pouring. Of course to some people, any evidence, either written or not, that has not been defined as scripture, can safely be ignored.

What is your take on this? Getting to the roots of a practice or tradition is a muddy business.

I think yuur comments on trust are very important and illuminating, and that the violation of trust has had lingering consequences that are coming to fruition today. I’ll comment on that maybe tomorrow!

Mack

Hi Mack, thank and thanks for yours! I must admit I really enjoyed it.

The reason for my questions was to force an answer just like yours .

Jesus knew the Scriptures, obvious I know but please let me see if I can make sense of what is in my head, lol.

Jesus is the Word and before Abraham He was. Jesus is God. The Church in Her deposit of Faith made that manifest to us through the Holy Spirit.

Now if we look at Scriptures themselves, we see our Creator communicating with us how?
Through Tradition!!!

How do we understand Tradition?
Through Covenants.

How do we understand Covenants?
By the Authority of those who God has given the deposit of Faith.

How was Abraham able to understand the Covenant God made with him? Through the sacrifice of the animals and walking through their split halves, etc.

Throughout Scriptures themselves we see all these revelations God makes to us by Tradition. I believe Nicaea325 posted here or on another thread that Scriptures are a product of Tradition. The notes around the text of the OT, the different Feasts on specific times of the year, After our Lord’s Last Supper, the breaking of the bread by the Apostles and the Church Fathers, etc. etc.

However, some Traditions were later instituted, like Lent. Although I might be mistaken Lent being tradition instead of T.

I also had this in mind from CCC:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

The rest here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm

There is such a book that holds our doctrine and Traditions and traditions, but I’m not sure if it includes them all.

However, the other point I was trying to make is that we (as Catholics) need to be more careful in claiming Traditions from traditions. I myself am not sure on a lot of them, as such I try to not just pull on the name of something I don’t fully understand myself.

We also need to be able to explain our practices, even if they were started after the Apostles. Maybe because, even thou Doctrine doesn’t change, our interpretation of it might. But hiding under the blanket of Tradition doesn’t help anyone, more so if it really isn’t covered under Tradition. It doesn’t mean it is not authoritative, but if we fail to be transparent we will only add to the break of trust started hundred of years ago.

I hope I was clear brother. If not, there’s always more posts

Peace,

Jose

 

[Pheonix]

Great question. Please forgive me for answering yours with one of my own, that being, what is the oral, Sacred Tradition regarding the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome? The churches that claim direct succession from the Apostles (in an ecclesiastical manner) interpret the pope’s jurisdiction differently. As that is the case, where does one simple Lutheran such as myself turn. And this is not a trivial matter, at least not for me (as those regulars who know me will attest).

And your question is something I need to ponder over, Jon. As such, I must admit that I have to do some proper research in order to formulate a coherent response to your question. I’m not as educated in religious matters as well as I would like to be.

Until I do the proper scholarship, do you mind if we agree to disagree? It feels like such a cop-out for me to do this, but without being properly educated on such a matter, nothing fruitful can come from a discussion on this topic.

The above is an example, as there are others: the IC, indulgences, etc. ISTM that the Lutheran reformers turned to scripture because there was and remains, at least in part. conflict regarding the interpretation of Sacred Tradition.

I understand your concerns, as what I’ve quoted above here is a concern I too share. In other words, there seems to be just as much conflict regarding the interpretation of Sacred Scripture as there is Sacred Tradition.

There are many examples of this for me. The Real Presence is one of the more prominent concerns, though. In John 6, Jesus says those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him and Him in us, and He will raise us on the last day.

I understand that Lutherans accept the Real Presence, and that Jesus meant what He said in John 6. But what of the other Protestants like, just to give an example, Calvinists? Despite support from Scripture and the Early Church Fathers, they claim there is no Real Presence and that communion is merely a symbol that signifies your belief in Christ. These Protestants practice Sola Scriptura as well, and provide just as many scriptural arguments against the Real Presence as there are arguments for the belief. With such different conclusions being drawn from turning to Scripture as the final norm, where am I to turn? I think this is, in part, one of the reasons why the Catholic Church has never turned to Sola Scriptura.

Some Protestants try and dismiss such conflicting interpretations by saying that they’re on trivial matters. I don’t see it that way, much like you don’t see the jursidiction of the Pope as a trivial matter. It seems to me that if what Jesus said in John 6 is meant to be taken at face-value, then it’s plausible that receiving Christ in the Real Presence of communion affects our salvation in some way, shape, or form, correct?

Now, I’m not trying to challenge you in any way on this ongoing debate about the validity of Sola Scriptura. But as you shared some of your concerns to me, I felt the need to reciprocate by explaining similar concerns that I have.

Peace be with you,
Robert

 

[JonNC]

=Pheonix;9394251]And your question is something I need to ponder over, Jon. As such, I must admit that I have to do some proper research in order to formulate a coherent response to your question. I’m not as educated in religious matters as well as I would like to be.

Until I do the proper scholarship, do you mind if we agree to disagree? It feels like such a cop-out for me to do this, but without being properly educated on such a matter, nothing fruitful can come from a discussion on this topic.

Robert,
Honesty is never a cop-out.

I understand your concerns, as what I’ve quoted above here is a concern I too share. In other words, there seems to be just as much conflict regarding the interpretation of Sacred Scripture as there is Sacred Tradition.

Agreed, and contrary to what some say, this is failure of human sin, not evidence that, somehow, the gates of Hell have prevailed.

There are many examples of this for me. The Real Presence is one of the more prominent concerns, though. In John 6, Jesus says those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him and Him in us, and He will raise us on the last day.

And perhaps more importantly, the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels and later by St. Paul.

I understand that Lutherans accept the Real Presence, and that Jesus meant what He said in John 6. But what of the other Protestants like, just to give an example, Calvinists? Despite support from Scripture and the Early Church Fathers, they claim there is no Real Presence and that communion is merely a symbol that signifies your belief in Christ. These Protestants practice Sola Scriptura as well, and provide just as many scriptural arguments against the Real Presence as there are arguments for the belief. With such different conclusions being drawn from turning to Scripture as the final norm, where am I to turn? I think this is, in part, one of the reasons why the Catholic Church has never turned to Sola Scriptura.

And they clearly are wrong. Just as you cannot account for the teachings of communions that, on the one hand, claim Sacred Tradition as equal to scripture, and on the other, disagree on any number of doctrine with Rome, I cannot account for communions that, on the one hand claim sola scriptura, and on the other, disagree wth the Lutheran confessions. ISTM that some of these communions fail to take into account the teachings of the ECF’s and the early Church - the 7 councils and creeds. Some reject them out of hand. As a Lutheran, I find this to be a complete misuse of sola scriptura.

**Some Protestants try and dismiss such conflicting interpretations by saying that they’re on trivial matters. **I don’t see it that way, much like you don’t see the jursidiction of the Pope as a trivial matter. It seems to me that if what Jesus said in John 6 is meant to be taken at face-value, then it’s plausible that receiving Christ in the Real Presence of communion affects our salvation in some way, shape, or form, correct?

St. Paul seems to think a discernment of the real and substantial body and blood of Christ is far more than trivial, and I kind of take his word for it. So, yes, I agree, that based on the Last Supper accounts, and the predictive nature of John 6, that the Eucharist is a means of grace, and that any means of grace clearly has an impact on our salvation.

Now, I’m not trying to challenge you in any way on this ongoing debate about the validity of Sola Scriptura. But as you shared some of your concerns to me, I felt the need to reciprocate by explaining similar concerns that I have.

Nothing wrong with being challenged. That’s how we grow. And just as importantly, we must share our concerns with charity and Christian love in order for the SPirit to bring about reconciliation and unity.

Peace be with you,

And also with you, Robert.

Jon

 

[StevenFrancis]

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

I’m sure many will have said all these same things by now, but I need to do this to get back in the game here. I’ve been away awhile:

Sola Scriptura is not scriptural, in fact it is anti-scriptural. Please see
Mt. 16:13 - 20 and 18:18. Luke 10:16. We were left a Church, and not a book - Mt. 16:18 and 28:19 - 20; John 14:16. Sacred Tradition to be followed besides scripture 2 Thess 2:15 and 3:6

The doctrine doesn’t come from scripture. This alone is not reason to throw it out, as many of the Catholic doctrines don’t come directly from scripture either, and that’s part of the point.

We know from John, that not everything our Lord said and did is recorded in scripture. (John 21:25)

We must keep our oral tradition as well. The preached word of God
1 Cor 11:2; 1 Peter 1:25
The truth is in the Church 1 Tim 3:15.

I see that you’re Catholic, and with the fullness of being a Catholic, why would you entertain giving any of it up? I encourage you to speak with your priest about this at length. You describe yourself in agony. I don’t know how to tell someone to just have faith. I know it sounds empty. We will all face many temptations all of our lives. You’re already in the right place. I am hoping there are many people answering on here, who are much smarter than I, who can help you see that there is no reason to change your Catholic position. I am leaning on scripture verses here, but the explanations that go with the scripture come from magesterium of the Catholic Church. We are not left alone to flounder with interpretations. We have an authority. Sola scriptura does not. Remember the Ethopian eunuch. He was reading Isaiah, and was asked by one of the Apostles, “do you understand what you are reading?”, and the eunuch replied, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me”? Well this is a fairly telling passage. We need the apostles to explain scripture to us. We need an authority. Without that, if 10 people are reading the scriptures, you’re going to have 10 different religions. 9 and possibly all 10 of them will be heretical, because they will be overlayed by the reader with pridefullness, and a desire to conform the scriptures to their individual will, instead of the the will of God left with us in Apostolic interpretation and teaching authority.

I hope any of this helps. In any event, may God bless you, and may the Holy Spirit guide you in your quest for truth.

 

[vsedriver]

. The first commandment in the catholic catechism says"I am the LORD your God:you shall not have strange Gods before me. But I see nothing about warning of making an idol and worshiping it. In , just go to google images and type in "worshiping Mary’ and you will see Catholics bowing down before a statue of Mary. That is what happen when you start editing God’s commandments. Now it may be in other catechisms but why the discrepancies

Not all bowing is worship. Bowing is also a sign of respect and veneration. Otherwise I have a lot of pictures of people ‘worshiping’ Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[vsedriver]

[27] And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. [28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.

We are to work 6 days and then rest. It is not the day of the week that makes a Sabbath but the order of work and rest.

Acts:20:[7] And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight.

[7] And on the first day of the week: Here St. Chrysostom and many other interpreters of the scripture explain, that the Christians even at this time, must have changed the sabbath into the first day of the week, (the Lord’s day,) as all Christians now keep it. This change was undoubtedly made by the authority of the church; hence the exercise of the power, which Christ had given to her: for he is Lord of the sabbath.

The Catholic Church still allows for a Saturday evening Mass to count as fulfilling our Sunday obligation.

 

[JonNC]

Jharek,
Perhaps our friend would do better with the link below.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#IV

IV. “YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . .”>

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new “economy” of images.

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.71

Jon

 

[aussie_stockman]

**vsedriver - **

Earlier in the thread, I said:

I think it’s just a “long shot” to say that Sunday was considered “the Lords Day” by the apostles… Especially when you consider that for the Jews, a day BEGINS at sundown… I mean, that would imply that “the Lords Day” REALLY began on Saturday evening - but, you don’t find THAT in ANY tradition. I suspect strongly that the Sunday morning meetings (when they finally began) were just a time for some fellowship, very informal. It was probably the Gentile believers who eventually turned Sunday into “the Lords Day”. I doubt that the apostles had anything at all to do with it…

You responded with:

[27] And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. [28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.

We are to work 6 days and then rest. It is not the day of the week that makes a Sabbath but the order of work and rest.

Acts:20:[7] And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight.

[7] And on the first day of the week: Here St. Chrysostom and many other interpreters of the scripture explain, that the Christians even at this time, must have changed the sabbath into the first day of the week, (the Lord’s day,) as all Christians now keep it. This change was undoubtedly made by the authority of the church; hence the exercise of the power, which Christ had given to her: for he is Lord of the sabbath.

The Catholic Church still allows for a Saturday evening Mass to count as fulfilling our Sunday obligation.

The “issue” I was pointing out was NOT whether it was “OK” to meet on Sundays (as opposed to the traditional Jewish Sabbath) - but merely to point out, as a matter of pure practicality, that for the early church (VERY early) - most of whom were Jews - meeting on a Sunday morning would not be terribly easy, since the majority of them were getting up to go to work on Sunday morning. It would just be difficult to imagine that the Apostles - who were all Jews - started “meeting times” on Sunday mornings, when for the rest of their culture, that was the “first work day of the week”.

So, again, my point is that, although the tradition of Sunday morning meetings probably did indeed start pretty early on (say, by 99 AD), I have my doubts that it was the Apostles that started it… That’s all…

 

[rinnie]

I’m “protestant” believer who, like many, believe that in the instance of Matt 16:18, Simon bar Jona (Kephas, Petros) may have, in fact, been “this rock” that Jesus spoke about when he said “…upon this rock I will build my church”.

However, that doesn’t mean that Simon was the ONLY rock. After all, Eph 2:20 says that the church was built on all the apostles…

so, yeh, Jesus was saying to Simon - “I’m going to build my church on you”. But, evidently, He also fully intended to build it on each of the apostles (unless Eph 2:20 is lying, which I doubt it is).

My take on it is that IF Simon was “this rock” (and, as we all know, that is a highly disputed assertion in itself), then apparantly, he wasn’t the ONLY rock… Jesus could well have said “…you are Simon, and upon you, I will build my church - and also, on Matthew, Luke, James, et al…”

I’m not “Orthodox” myself, but I find it interesting that the Orthodox churches (or, at least, a significant number of them) claim that Roman Catholocism broke away from THEM in the “Great Schism” of 1054… But, after all, some of those early churches were founded long before the church in Rome. (ie, the churches of galatia, ephesus, jerusalem, etc, etc). Those were the ones that couldn’t go along with the Papacy…

I don’t really know for sure what Matt 16:18 means, and it’s highly debated what it means. I do, however, know what Eph 2:20 means… It’s not “ambiguous”, but Matt 16:18 is - at it’s best - highly ambiguous…

OK, thats my take on it…

Peter being the rock and given the keys to the kingdom, has nothing to do with all of the Apostles building up the Church.

Actually it is not only the Apostles who are to build up the Church of Christ. Not even today. We are ALL called to build up the Church of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

**vsedriver - **

Earlier in the thread, I said:

I think it’s just a “long shot” to say that Sunday was considered “the Lords Day” by the apostles… Especially when you consider that for the Jews, a day BEGINS at sundown… I mean, that would imply that “the Lords Day” REALLY began on Saturday evening - but, you don’t find THAT in ANY tradition. I suspect strongly that the Sunday morning meetings (when they finally began) were just a time for some fellowship, very informal. It was probably the Gentile believers who eventually turned Sunday into “the Lords Day”. I doubt that the apostles had anything at all to do with it…

You responded with:

Originally Posted by vsedriver
[27] And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. [28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.

We are to work 6 days and then rest. It is not the day of the week that makes a Sabbath but the order of work and rest.

Acts:20:[7] And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight.

[7] And on the first day of the week: Here St. Chrysostom and many other interpreters of the scripture explain, that the Christians even at this time, must have changed the sabbath into the first day of the week, (the Lord’s day,) as all Christians now keep it. This change was undoubtedly made by the authority of the church; hence the exercise of the power, which Christ had given to her: for he is Lord of the sabbath.

The Catholic Church still allows for a Saturday evening Mass to count as fulfilling our Sunday obligation.

The “issue” I was pointing out was NOT whether it was “OK” to meet on Sundays (as opposed to the traditional Jewish Sabbath) - but merely to point out, as a matter of pure practicality, that for the early church (VERY early) - most of whom were Jews - meeting on a Sunday morning would not be terribly easy, since the majority of them were getting up to go to work on Sunday morning. It would just be difficult to imagine that the Apostles - who were all Jews - started “meeting times” on Sunday mornings, when for the rest of their culture, that was the “first work day of the week”.

So, again, my point is that, although the tradition of Sunday morning meetings probably did indeed start pretty early on (say, by 99 AD), I have my doubts that it was the Apostles that started it… That’s all…

Does that mean you don’t think Paul was an Apostle, because he met with believers on the first day of the week?

 

[guanophore]

Peter being the rock and given the keys to the kingdom, has nothing to do with all of the Apostles building up the Church.

Actually it is not only the Apostles who are to build up the Church of Christ. Not even today. We are ALL called to build up the Church of Christ.

I beg to differ, Rinnie. Any church building that occurred outside of unity with those Keys was not considered valid or authorized.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I beg to differ, Rinnie. Any church building that occurred outside of unity with those Keys was not considered valid or authorized.

Only if it explicitly denied the authority of the Apostles and their successors - or anything they taught to be true.

What of the St. Thomas Christians, who were for 1500 years, largely disconnected from the rest of the Church?