Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[CentralFLJames]

Am I given this gift to teach, Howie? I confess Christ, I pray to the Spirit of God. Is every believer who does this endowed? Can we all teach salvific doctrine? Is it universally accepted across the board, among all of us “gifted” teachers? Does it mean nothing to you that all these “gifted” teachers out there are all teaching different doctrine?

Are we now on the same page?

I think the major implication Howie is trying to make is that Catholics are somehow exempted from being able to learn and teach since the reading of holy scripture and the teachings of the Holy Spirit do not work with anyone who had anything to do with the “teaching of men” - men like the apostles.

Apparently all that apostolic tradition “stuff” of “laying on of hands” serves to chase away the Holy Spirit or bid it good-bye?

Sorry, it’s hard not to become sarcastic when I see the circular logic and naked double standards trying to pass itself off as “enlightened”…

James

 

[Howie01]

CentralFLJames:

But Howie, why don’t you read the rest of it & see that almost no one with scholarship agrees that this was a canonical list of what we call New Testament writings?

I did, James, and again, my reason for citing the verse is to show that the apostles knew what they were writing is scripture. I mentioned nothing about a canon.

CentralFLJames:

And we still have the very glaring problem of why Peter refers to Paul’s written words two times first as “letters” and then only associates them a single time at the end of the verse to the term “scripture” through indirect association;

"We" don’t have a problem with it James, you do.

CentralFLJames:

In any case the undeniable and plain truth is that NO WHERE in the bible does THE BIBLE tell us WHAT books belong in the bible. The Catholic Church tells you this.

As I stated on my first post to this thread.

CentralFLJames:

Why would you trust the Catholic Church to tell you what is inspired scripture but not trust it to tell you what is the proper interpretation?

I don’t believe that one necessarily leads to the other, James, although I do realize that it’s your opinion that one does lead to the other.

CentralFLJames:

From Luke 10:16 you better be absolutely certain in your OPINION that the apostolic succession is no longer in force or you have just vicariously rejected Christ by rejecting Christ’s Church and His appointed apostolic successors who all claim validity to the original apostolic succession. If you are wrong you will be among those that Christ told us are the ones who “called me Lord Lord” but were condemned to hell for only paying lip service and not obeying ALL His teachings (which is to also follow those who he appointed as apostolic teachers and priests).

James, those who called “Lord, Lord,” were appealing to their works as their justification before God. I don’t appeal to my works for my justification before God, in any way, but you do.

CentralFLJames:

Good - at least you are admitting you are not following scripture and are following your own opinions. As for me - I am not following my own opinion. I am following the continuous unbroken 2,000 historical apostolic succession that has never been replaced by God or man.

James, the church’s own opinion, is “your own opinion” by proxy.

CentralFLJames:

Can you deny that the Catholic Church has not been in existence for 2,000 years? We have the archaeological and historical evidence to back it (bones of St. Peter under the altar in the Vatican, the original papal residence and church given in Constantine’s time -Basilica of St. John Lateran as well as all the vast archives and museum collections.

You’re convinced by physical evidence, James; I find it interesting, but am more in wonder of the power of the Word to change hearts, and regenerate spiritually dead people. Archaeological and historical evidence can’t do that.

CentralFLJames:

Don’t you think that the ability of The Catholic Church to withstand and outlive ALL of its persecutors for 2,000 years is strong evidence that apostolic succession is still alive and well?

No.

CentralFLJames:

We have outlives all nations and heretical Churches that have ever tried to oppress us.

Ooh-Rah…

CentralFlJames:

Whereas Protestantism IMMEDIATELY fractured during the Catholic-Counter-Revolution and fractured into many sects which now stands at 32,000+ and counting new Protestant denominations under the divisional errors of “every man with a bible and an opinion his own pope” (that comes from the error of sola scriptura).

:doh2:

CentralFLJames:

Yes- every time you re-interpret scripture to teach something that no apostle ever taught you are essentially re-writing scripture and teaching a new gospel.

IOW, when I don’t agree with your interpretation, correct?

(continued)

 

[Howie01]

(continued from 42)

.

CentralFLJames:

The scriptures do not tell us that they are an authority. Authority exists in people and is God given. There is no scripture that tells us that scripture is authority.

Is it your position that Scripture has no authority, James? Or that Scripture is authoritative on the basis of the Church imparting authority to it?

CentralFLJames:

The scriptures do tell us that “the authority” to forgive sins is given to the apostles and that authority is given to their successors as we see when Mathias is elected and “layed on hands” to convey that apostolic authority.

James, as Paul was preparing to pass the mantle to Timothy, did he give to him the title of “apostle,” or “apostolic successor?” How did Paul refer to Timothy, at that time?

CentralFLJames:

In a certain sense you are correct that the signs and wonders were no longer necessary to gain new converts after the Church started being formed. But this is NOT to be taken as a sign of declining authority. The Spirit focused now more on revealing deeper truths of sacred scripture and tradition to help perfect His Church in teachings.

The cessation of the “sign” gifts certainly didn’t diminish the authority of the living apostles.

CentralFLJames:

But there are from time to time special signs and wonders given to individuals of the Catholic Church so God can confirm a critical message. This is why the Catholic Church has thousands of saints who performed many miracles after the apostolic era and still does to this day. A more modern saint is Padre Pio who had many visions and miracles associated with him. We don’t get much credible evidence of this from Protestants (except from the sensational TV healers which I don’t want to comment on further). Why is that?

James, the writer of Hebrew makes this statement in the opening of the epistle:**Hebrews 1:1-21 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.**”Various ways,” included visions. But, in the “last days” [God] has spoken to us in His Son. There’s finality in that language; revelation is complete, at least for the Church age, or the “times of the Gentiles.” So, to add to it, the Book of Mormon, or Science and Health, or the Koran, or anything else is blasphemous. So, from that passage, the church is able to spot, and to identify counterfeits, in which category, I would include visions, and apparitions claiming to be from God.

Has your church ever altered, or created new doctrine from visions and apparitions since Christ?

 

[Lux_Caelum]

Note that it takes grace to be able to complete these devotionals. I tried to do each of these devotionals at an earlier time in my life when I was young and foolish and thought I could just “do the work” (i.e. “just believe”) and I’d be assured of heaven. But you WILL NOT be able to complete these devotionals unless your heart is in the right place - right there with Jesus. He gives the graces to complete these. I could only complete them 25 years later when I was finally able to commit to the proper interior state. If you are not ready then you will forget to go to one of the masses within the first 2-3 months.

Sacred Heart of Jesus Devotional Background can be read here:
fisheaters.com/sh.html

Immaculate Heart of Mary Devotional Background can be read here:
fisheaters.com/ih.html

James

Thanks I reviewed the background information on devotionals and I don’t think I’m ready yet. Although a cradle Catholic I fell away and only recently started taking my faith seriously. I’m working on a few areas in my life right now in an effort to get my faith consistently at a higher level.

Lux

 

[CentralFLJames]

I did, James, and again, my reason for citing the verse is to show that the apostles knew what they were writing is scripture. I mentioned nothing about a canon.

So then you do admit that there was no established NT cannon at the time Peter was warning about how scripture is difficult to interpret - especially scripture that is not written yet. It seems to me that Peter is saying that scripture is hard to understand and not self interpreting and the apostles never used sola scriptura because 1) Ignorant men remain ignorant until somone teaches them and 2) Scripture is complex and untaught men can only misinterpret it.

Can you agree that the apostles did not teach any concept of sola-scriptura? That is, the notion that scripture is self interpreting is not taught by the apostles since ignorant, untaught men could not understand it without proper teaching?

I continue to remain unconvinced that the apostles thought everything they said or wrote was scripture otherwise the lost letters of Paul means that God permitted inspired works to be lost. If you believe that what the apostles understood things they wrote as inspired would you care to comment on how God would let inspired writings of Paul’s be lost?

"We" don’t have a problem with it James, you do.

So in other words you are fine with the fact that the majority of scholars do not believe that Peter was speaking of Paul’s writings as being “scripture” in the same sense we do today and you acknowledge that there was no complete list of NT scripture?

If all NT scripture is not yet written and not defined are you saying that 2 Timothy 3:16 is not just about OT scripture but is ALSO a prophecy about future NT scripture that is not written yet??? Let’s not forget that this is Paul speaking to a new disciple and TEACHING him about the fledgling new Christian faith. Do you rally assert that Paul is prophesing 10-20-30-40 years into the future and has a vision that John and Luke and Jude et-al are going to write more NT scripture??

I don’t believe for an instant that you can keep a straight face if you say yes.

2 Tim 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

As I stated on my first post to this thread.

OK - wonderful. So you do agree that the Church recognized NT scripture and defined it later after it was written?

**Can you give a date when that cannon definition happened? **
Will you agree that the first cannon is defined by the Catholic Church under Pope Damasus in 382 AD? Or are you going to claim that Pope Damasus was not Catholic?

I don’t believe that one necessarily leads to the other, James, although I do realize that it’s your opinion that one does lead to the other.

Your position does not seem reasonable. How can the Catholic Church discern “inspired writings” from many false writings if the Church can’t properly interpret the content of the writings? How would it know what was inspired unless it made sense to reason and interpretation? Do you think the Holy Spirit just made the correct books jump out from among the piles of other uninspired scriptures and present itself miraclously? Would you care to give any insight into how it might have worked without the ability to interpret scripture infallibly? Or are you saying that these men were fallable but just got lucky in picking the right books?

Lots of questions here.

Why would you trust the Catholic Church to tell you what is inspired scripture but not trust it to tell you what is the proper interpretation?

James, those who called “Lord, Lord,” were appealing to their works as their justification before God. I don’t appeal to my works for my justification before God, in any way, but you do.

So you are not worried in the least that you might be wrong about the necessity of following the apostolic authority that was handed down even though Mathias’ and Timothy’s and “others” installation is a positive sign that there were then FOUR generations of succession already installed through physical laying on of hands to convey the apostolic authority???

Do you care to read what the Early Church Fathers thought about apostolic succession?

As a point of correction I will say that the verse was not talking at all about works but rather the **lack of any works **for not DOING what Christ had commanded. So you see these were cast into hell for not doing anyting but professing an empty faith with no substance behind it backed by works of love.

James, the church’s own opinion, is “your own opinion” by proxy.

So you have your own unique opinion or do you share it with anyone else? Are you a member of any ecclesial community of like minded believers or is it just “you and your bible”?

Where do you take problems to for resolution given that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 tim 3:15)? We are told to bring issues to the physical church? Does your church have a street address? Or does everyone pile into a van to drive up to the nearest library that has a bible and ask it to resolve your disputes?

Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it [disputes/sins] to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

[continued]
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

You’re convinced by physical evidence, James; I find it interesting, but am more in wonder of the power of the Word to change hearts, and regenerate spiritually dead people. Archaeological and historical evidence can’t do that.

You evaded the question. The question is what convinces you of what and where is the true Church? Is the Church visible or invisible? Does it have any leaders appointed by God? Do they have any authority?
Do you deny that the Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church?

Or would you say that the Church is wherever the bible happens to be? How about a Gideon’s Bible in the Holiday Inn - is The Church present in each room that has a bible?

No.

So where is the apostolic church? If is not in existence anymore?

:doh2:

Mind blowing to imagine that a highly divided mess could be anything like “The Church” that Jesus set up isn’t it? Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and its clear to me from the chaos who is NOT Jesus’ Church. Is it as clear to you?

IOW, when I don’t agree with your interpretation, correct?
(continued)

Well Peter and Paul were as frustrated by “ignorant” people who wanted to "teach the teachers’ what they meant and I can feel the same way.
Who taught you what you believe Howie?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

(continued from 42)
Is it your position that Scripture has no authority, James? Or that Scripture is authoritative on the basis of the Church imparting authority to it?

In reviewing the bible from Gen. to Rev. - Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. It appears to me that God installed authority in PEOPLE. Moses, the Prophets, Abraham, King David, Jesus, the Apostles, and The Church under the apostolic succession. The Church begot the bible. The bible did not beget the Church. Christ commanded His apostles to TEACH not to write a bible. The Bible came out of the apostolic authority.

So Authority is seated on the Chair of Peter (the papacy) and installed into the communion of apostolic bishops ruling in concert with the bishop-of-bishops (the pope). Christ is the entire Living Word of God and the Church is the Body of Christ. Ergo- all authority comes from Christ through his apostolic authority and resides in the ecclesial structure of The Church to this day. Scripture serves The Church the Church does not serve Scripture but Scripture never is in conflict with The Church or Sacred Tradition. The Church has the sole authority to interpret Scripture.

As an aside, given that you previously mentioned that Peter was referring to Paul’s works as scripture and you admitted that scripture was not all written yet can you admit here that since all scripture was not yet defined that scripture CAN NOT be the sole necessity of salvation? If not that leaves a lot of early Christians to land in hell without having read a single word of “NT scripture” that 98% did not even possess reading skills much less have a copy to read. Can you admit that there was no bible and so there could be no authority in a thing that does not exist yet?

(
James, as Paul was preparing to pass the mantle to Timothy, did he give to him the title of “apostle,” or “apostolic successor?” How did Paul refer to Timothy, at that time?

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Here is what some of the ECF’s said - before all scripture was even written or published!:

Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop.** For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry**” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus"
When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus"
It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

James, the writer of Hebrew makes this statement in the opening of the epistle:

Hebrews 1:1-2​

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,

2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…

Has your church ever altered, or created new doctrine from visions and apparitions since Christ?
The Deposit of the Faith was sealed after the last apostle died. The Church, alone, has preserved the fullness of revelation both in sacred scripture and sacred tradition. This is how we know that the Reformers taught an all new never before heard gospel 1400 years later.

The Church has not altered anything in the Deposit of Faith based on apparitions and has only ruled on them in terms of being in consistent with DoF.

What is blasphemous are the new neo-Chrisian teachings of sola fide and sola scripture - things NEVER before heard or taught by the apostles or The Church for 1400 years and which have now been declared anathema and anyone who teaches these lies are subject to harsh judgement for every soul they mislead.

James
​

​

 

[paul_c]

Howie,
We need a visible church on Earth to lead us to God because most of us don’t have the ability to experience the supernatural. This idea that there is a separate invisible church was the creation of men, who wanted to claim something that just wasn’t there. Why would God create a separate invisible church, when he already had a Church that was fully visible to men, and fully vested with the Full doctrine of Faith.

So tell us again, how your Invisible church is more believable than our Fully visible one, that can be experienced with all our senses…

 

[ralphy]

Howie,I must agree with the things you say. I was a catholic for 43 years and did not have Christ in my heart, only my head. When I turned to Christ and accepted Him as my personal savior, He changed my life and now I know He lives within me. I only follow the Bible as this is what we will be judged by in the end. PTL, Ralph

 

[Crumpy]

If you read 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 you will see who wrote the Holy Bible. These discussions are certainly helping me to brush up on my Bible study. I read those articles you refered to, “Souls from purgatory”, “Rosary corfaternity” and “Chapel of devine mercy”. I find these articles all originated from mans teaching and cannot be found in scripture. As for Christs church; these are the called out ones of God and belong to the body of Christ, saved people, they have no denomination as there are only two kinds of people on earth, saved or unsaved. Ralph

There are many parallels between Judaism and Christianity (yes, many obvious differences). In a book called What You Should Know about Jews and Judaism, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein.

Modern Judaism (the last 2500 years), is based on a written Torah (“teaching”) and on an oral Torah. An oral Torah is required to interpret the written Torah. For example, since the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. how do the Jews obey the laws (commands given in the written Torah [Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy]) ? There are Hebrew words in the Torah that nobody understands. How do Jews handle that?

The essence of Judaism is lifelong study of the Torah (" Talmud Torah ") and the interpretations are left to the rabbis. Sounds simple, until he explains that Judaism is splintered into Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative, and those respective rabbis disagree. The rabbis within each branch disagree, and an individual Jew is advised to follow the teaching of his own rabbi.

Ralph, you may be skeptical about “the rules of men” but you, Man, don’t have all the answers in the Bible. The Jews would LOVE to find all the answers in the Bible, but they’re not there. (Read Psalm 119 for insight.)

Catholicm has the purpose primarily of teaching as a means of evangelization, through the sacraments. Rabbi Eckstein criticizes Christianity for its divisions, based on a lack of an oral tradition (notwithstanding his admission, above, about the divisions in Judaism).

You can’t have a Christian faith or religion without interpretations. Where do you find in the Bible, Mr. Ralph, that everybody should follow their own interpretation of scripture? Doesn’t it say in 1 or 2 Peter that scripture is NOT intended for private interpretation?

For example, Eckstein points out that the KJV misinterprets the commandment not to “murder” as a commandment not to “kill.” There are different words in Hebrew for murder and kill, and the KJV is a mis-translation. (did you know that all Christian scholars went to Jewish scholars to learn Hebrew, to translate the Old Testament?)

Ralphy, you’re sitting on a house of cards of your own making. You are invoking the right to make interpretations, which you say NO ONE should do. Your contradiction is demonstrated.

 

[Lux_Caelum]

Howie,I must agree with the things you say. I was a catholic for 43 years and did not have Christ in my heart, only my head. When I turned to Christ and accepted Him as my personal savior, He changed my life and now I know He lives within me. I only follow the Bible as this is what we will be judged by in the end. PTL, Ralph

Ralphy, I mean no disrespect by the following questions they are genuine questions to better understand the mentality of some of the protestants I have conversed with.

Why weren’t you able to turn to Christ as your personal savior as a Catholic?

As a Catholic why did you only have Christ in your head and not in your heart?

Why do you continue to claim that “WE” will only be judged by the bible? What if I was illiterate, would I be judged by the bible?

Is anyone that lived prior to the prostestant reformation saved?

Is it possible protestanism has given you a false sense of security or an inflated ego?

If you are eternally secure why do you frequent Catholilc Answers? In other words what is your purpose for participating on this forum if you have no interest in returning to Catholicism?

Lux

 

[Howie01]

CentralFLJames:

So then you do admit that there was no established NT cannon at the time Peter was warning about how scripture is difficult to interpret

Oh, for heaven’s sake, James, how many times to I have to answer in the affirmative that there was no canon at the time the apostles knew they were writing scripture? C’mon.

And, Peter didn’t say in that passage that scripture is difficult to interpret, what Peter said pertained to SOME of the things Paul wrote that were hard to understand.

CentralFLJames:

Can you agree that the apostles did not teach any concept of sola-scriptura?

They certainly did teach SS, and they taught the sufficiency of scripture in equipping men to do what is good, and right.

CentralFLJames:

That is, the notion that scripture is self interpreting is not taught by the apostles since ignorant, untaught men could not understand it without proper teaching?

Yes, James, ignorant and untaught men are the problem.

CentralFLJames:

I continue to remain unconvinced that the apostles thought everything they said or wrote was scripture otherwise the lost letters of Paul means that God permitted inspired works to be lost. If you believe that what the apostles understood things they wrote as inspired would you care to comment on how God would let inspired writings of Paul’s be lost?

Scripture states that God works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11); therefore, it’s safe to say, any writings that were lost, were lost according to God’s will.

CentralFLJames:

So in other words you are fine with the fact that the majority of scholars do not believe that Peter was speaking of Paul’s writings as being “scripture” in the same sense we do today and you acknowledge that there was no complete list of NT scripture?

”Majority of Scholars??? C’mon James, the article I cited didn’t claim to have surveyed the opinion of every scholar on the subject, but a few scholars only, with different opinions.

Your question, as phrased, is dishonest, James.

CentralFLJames:

If all NT scripture is not yet written and not defined are you saying that 2 Timothy 3:16 is not just about OT scripture but is ALSO a prophecy about future NT scripture that is not written yet???

2 Tim 3:16 says ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED, James, in your opinion, is the NT Scripture, Scripture? If so, you have your answer. If not, why not?

CentralFLJames:

Let’s not forget that this is Paul speaking to a new disciple and TEACHING him about the fledgling new Christian faith. Do you rally assert that Paul is prophesing 10-20-30-40 years into the future and has a vision that John and Luke and Jude et-al are going to write more NT scripture??

You’re being frivolous, James. The apostles’ knew they were writing scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

CentralFLJames:

OK - wonderful. So you do agree that the Church recognized NT scripture and defined it later after it was written?

Assembled a “canon?” Gee whiz, for about, what, the fifth time now, yes. HELLOOOO, James.

CentralFLJames:

Can you give a date when that cannon definition happened?
Will you agree that the first cannon is defined by the Catholic Church under Pope Damasus in 382 AD? Or are you going to claim that Pope Damasus was not Catholic?

The first councils to codify the writings were held in North Africa at Hippo, and Carthage in 393, and 397, respectively.

CentralFLJames:

Your position does not seem reasonable. How can the Catholic Church discern “inspired writings” from many false writings if the Church can’t properly interpret the content of the writings?

Because the primary concern was the authenticity of authorship.

CentralFLJames:

How would it know what was inspired unless it made sense to reason and interpretation?

Because the church’s in handing down the writings attested to the authenticity of authorship.

CentralFLJames:

Do you think the Holy Spirit just made the correct books jump out from among the piles of other uninspired scriptures and present itself miraclously? Would you care to give any insight into how it might have worked without the ability to interpret scripture infallibly? Or are you saying that these men were fallable but just got lucky in picking the right books?

Authenticity of authorship.

CentralFLJames:

Lots of questions here.

Yes, and all with the same answer.
.

(continued)

 

[Howie01]

(continued from 52)

.

CentralFLJames:

Why would you trust the Catholic Church to tell you what is inspired scripture but not trust it to tell you what is the proper interpretation?

As I said before, James, I don’t believe that the one necessitates the other, and history demonstrates that many others believe that as well.

CentralFLJames:

So you are not worried in the least that you might be wrong about the necessity of following the apostolic authority that was handed down even though Mathias’ and Timothy’s and “others” installation is a positive sign that there were then FOUR generations of succession already installed through physical laying on of hands to convey the apostolic authority???

Why should I worry about it, James, I have the apostles’ writings, what more “apostolic authority” do I need?

CentralFLJames:

As a point of correction I will say that the verse was not talking at all about works but rather the lack of any works for not DOING what Christ had commanded.

If that were the case, James, then they would have said, ”Lord, Lord, WE DIDN’T DO ANY WORKS…” but we both know they didn’t say that, don’t we?

CentralFLJames:

So you have your own unique opinion or do you share it with anyone else? Are you a member of any ecclesial community of like minded believers or is it just “you and your bible”?

I belong to a very robust community of believers, and we are affiliated with many other robust churches of like mind.

CentralFLJames:

Where do you take problems to for resolution given that The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 tim 3:15)? We are told to bring issues to the physical church? Does your church have a street address? Or does everyone pile into a van to drive up to the nearest library that has a bible and ask it to resolve your disputes?

We follow the guidelines from Mt 18:15ff.

CentralFLJames:

You evaded the question. The question is what convinces you of what and where is the true Church?

I answered that question way back [here:](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p= 4945993&postcount=17) Does a Church’s teaching comport with Scripture…

CentralFLJames:

Is the Church visible or invisible?

Both.

CentralFLJames:

Does it have any leaders appointed by God?

Yes.

CentralFLJames:

Do they have any authority?

Of course, James. Most churches have a structured “chain of command,” if you will.

CentralFLJames:

Do you deny that the Catholic Church is not Christ’s Church?

I don’t deny that. (You may want to rephrase your question).

CentralFLJames:

So where is the apostolic church?

I’ve already answered that.

CentralFLJames:

Mind blowing to imagine that a highly divided mess could be anything like “The Church” that Jesus set up isn’t it?

Again James, I belong to a very robust church, and we are affiliated with other like minded SS churches across the U.S.

CentralFLJames:

Can you admit that there was no bible and so there could be no authority in a thing that does not exist yet?

James, whether or not the writings were ever assembled into a canon doesn’t affect their authority. Assembled into a canon, or not assembled into a canon, recognized, or not recognized, they are theopneustos, “God expired” Scriptures with all the authority of the one “breathing them out.”

CentralFLJames:

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

That doesn’t answer my question, James.

Here’s the question again:

…as Paul was preparing to pass the mantle to Timothy, did he give to him the title of “apostle,” or “apostolic successor?” How did Paul refer to Timothy, at that time?

CentralFLJames:

The Church has not altered anything in the Deposit of Faith based on apparitions and has only ruled on them in terms of being in consistent with DoF.

Thanks for the answer, James.

 

[Howie01]

SteveGC:

Fair enough, Howie. I’ll concede that you utterly confused me. I even went back and pasted all our dialogue together to make sense of it. And here’s what I’ve concluded…

You concede that we are all taught by humans first (sort of…I’ll get back to this point).

You agree that the apostles were, atleast, the first teachers.

You do not agree that the ones the apostles laid hands on, like the 7 deacons, and others, were then also given the “gift” to authentically teach. (or am I not listening again?)

Either way, as soon as the biblical story closes, after the last apostle lived his life out, teaching fell to the authority NOT of those they ordained (laid hands on), nor the ones the ordained also subsequently laid hands on. No…not them. Teaching, rather, somehow fell into the lap of anyone who subsequently read Scripture. You don’t clarify a whole lot about this “gift”, but I would assume you mean, anyone who confesses Christ as Lord, prays to the Holy Spirit for understanding, then reads Scripture. By doing all this, they are endowed with the “gift” to teach what they “learn” from reading the Bible. Or, wait. Is it really just a hand-select few that now can teach? And you happen to be one of them?

In other words, you actually deny that you learn directly from the humans that co-exist with you now in your life, although at the outset you said you agree that we all learn first from humans. I assume you thought I meant that you do learn from humans since inspired humans wrote the Bible, and now the Bible is, in essence, a “human” teacher to you, and that’s why you agreed earlier?

So, here we are. I guess I’m listening now. I don’t like what I’m hearing, but I think I’m finally listening.

Am I given this gift to teach, Howie? I confess Christ, I pray to the Spirit of God. Is every believer who does this endowed? Can we all teach salvific doctrine? Is it universally accepted across the board, among all of us “gifted” teachers? Does it mean nothing to you that all these “gifted” teachers out there are all teaching different doctrine? Or are all the ones teaching it differently from you really NOT gifted to teach? How in the world do I find one of these ‘gifted’ teachers, Howie?

Are we now on the same page?

ISTM the genesis of your confusion is you haven’t been able to lead me around by the nose with the apologetic outline you’ve written, Steve. It’s not original (Ecc 1:9).

For generations, theologians have stood on the shoulders of those who preceded them, and learned from them, all the way back to the ECFs.

 

[Howie01]

ralphy:

Howie,I must agree with the things you say. I was a catholic for 43 years and did not have Christ in my heart, only my head. When I turned to Christ and accepted Him as my personal savior, He changed my life and now I know He lives within me. I only follow the Bible as this is what we will be judged by in the end. PTL, Ralph

Thanks, Ralphy. Yours is a common story. The church I attend consists of a majority of ex-RCs, myself included. Keep contending for the faith brother.

 

[Lux_Caelum]

Thanks, Ralphy. Yours is a common story. The church I attend consists of a majority of ex-RCs, myself included. Keep contending for the faith brother.

I would counter that some of the most avid Catholics are former Protestants.

So why are YOU here? Did you come on to CA to evalgelize your faith or are you having some doubts?

Lux

 

[SteveGC]

ISTM the genesis of your confusion is you haven’t been able to lead me around by the nose with the apologetic outline you’ve written, Steve. It’s not original (Ecc 1:9).

For generations, theologians have stood on the shoulders of those who preceded them, and learned from them, all the way back to the ECFs.

I don’t make it a point to lead anyone around by the nose, my friend. Clever use of Ecc 1:9, by the way. As if I couldn’t say the same about folks like yourself who claim to be inspired teachers. You think this is first time I’ve encountered spiritual over-confidence? Nothing new under the sun, indeed.

No. I will admit I was confused over your assertions, primarily because your premise of human teaching is not one I share. Your view is that humans, while once necessary, are no longer required for teaching, because the inspired humans wrote it all down for us. And despite not needing humans, you would proclaim that you (a human) have the authority to teach. Oh, but my confusion is really that my “apologetic tactic” isn’t working. Sure.

Beyond that, we have your “I’ve heard it all before”, and no response to anything other than the first irrelevant sentence of my last post.

So, we can dispense with the false accusations of failed trap-setting, and get on with our dialogue, yes?

 

[steve_b]

If you read 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 you will see who wrote the Holy Bible. These discussions are certainly helping me to brush up on my Bible study.

Ralphy, I’d like to make a bigger point.

look again at the OP who has multiple quotes of yours.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4944998&postcount=1

What I’m seeing is that you are not being faithful to scripture as you profess.

Example:

:
Originally Posted by ralphy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
God is the only one who can forgive sin. Get away from this teaching of man befor you end up in hell. Jesus said “nobody comes to the Father but by Me”. Follow His word and nothing else, think about this statement please. Ralph

You used that response to refute that a priest can forgive sins. You absolutized the response the scribes and pharisees used against Jesus when HE forgave the paralytic his sins [Mk 2:7] Those same scribes and pharisees who remained scribes and pharisees and didn’t convert, also reject today as they did then, **2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 and the entire New Testament. **

Those who converted recognize that God gave certain men the authority to forgive others their sins

Jn 20:
“as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Now Ralphy, what are you really saying above?

• Is Jesus not God because only God can forgive sins?
• Jesus is overstepping his authority?
• you’re confused?
• or are you rejecting the gospel?

BTW, Jesus is not speaking these words looking out over all Judea. He is doing this specifically for His hand picked disciples. And THEY have the authority to pass this authority to those THEY ordain

 

[ShellKell]

Ok. I like that answer. Hopefully ralphy would consent to that answer also.

So. Now what?

To answer your question I would have to say “Yes and NO”. I have learned as much from reading the Scriptures as I have from man. I learned that Baptism is essential to my Salvation through the reading of the Holy Scriptures not from someone telling me, as a matter of fact I had people telling me that it was only symbolic. It was by Prayer and personal study that I learned the truth. If someone tells you to read a certain book because it’s a great story, doesn’t mean they have told you everything in the book. The problem I have with yours and so many other Catholics beliefs is that you want to claim ownership of God’s word. It’s like if it hadn’t been for the Catholic church God wouldn’t have been able to reveal his massage to us. No matter how hard you want to believe that the first Christians (The Apostles and the thousands that were added to the early church) were Catholic, but they weren’t. They were members of Christ’s church. We are all catholic (small c) and part of Christ’s universal church.

 

[steve_b]

They certainly did teach** SS**, and they taught the sufficiency of scripture in equipping men to do what is good, and right.

Where?

I’d like to see your defense of these.